Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP2592 Shine v. Sertich

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 1, 2011//

2009AP2592 Shine v. Sertich

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 1, 2011//

Listen to this article

Partnerships
Creation

Michael and Maureen Sertich appeal pro se from a judgment in favor of Donald Shine relating to his financial investment in the construction of six airplane hangars by the Sertiches and Metro Hangar Partners, LLC (MHP). The trial court found that the Sertiches committed fraud and breached the fiduciary duty owed to Shine. It pierced the corporate veil of MHP to render the Sertiches personally liable to Shine. The Sertiches argue that the evidence does not support the trial court’s determination that a partnership existed and that the Sertiches ignored the corporate form. They also argue that the award of damages contradicts the finding of a partnership because it does not offset what would have been Shine’s one-half partnership contribution and awards him an intended profit which the partnership never earned. We affirm the judgment. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP2592 Shine v. Sertich

Dist II, Waukesha County, Foster, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Sertich, Michael O., Sertich, Maureen E., pro se; For Respondent: Glojek, Gary A., Milwaukee; Redding, Joseph E., Milwaukee; Gruber, William V., Juneau

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests