Adamo v. Scheller (In Re Scheller)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Hardin
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- trial verdict
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court found the judgment debts held by Peter Adamo and Race Place against the Schellers non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (6), determining that Robert Scheller engaged in fraud and embezzlement in connection with the slot car business joint venture, and that Anita Scheller was liable as an accomplice.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
<bold>1. Employer and Employee — breach of fiduciary duty — forming rival company</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Camp on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from defendant leaving plaintiff's employment and starting a rival company, because plaintiff employer failed to establish facts supporting a breach of fiduciary duty when no evidence suggests that defendant's position in the workplace resulted in domination and influence over plaintiff.</block_quote> <bold>2. Employer and Employee — breach of loyalty — forming rival company</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Camp on a claim for breach of duty of loyalty arising from defendant leaving plaintiff's employment and starting a rival company, because plaintiff failed to establish that any independent tort for breach of duty of loyalty exists under our state law.</block_quote> <bold>3. Wrongful Interference — interference with prospective advantage —</bold> <bold>employees founding rival business</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Camp and MCC on a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage arising from defendant Camp leaving<page_number>Page 648</page_number> plaintiff's employment and starting a rival business publishing employment newsletters, because: (1) there is no evidence that defendant Camp induced KFI into entering a contract; and (2) plaintiff employer offers no evidence showing that but for defendant Camp's alleged interference, a contract with KFI would have ensued.</block_quote> <bold>4. Unfair Trade Practices — employee founding rival business — no fiduciary</bold> <bold>relationship — no egregious or aggravating conduct</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Camp and MCC on a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices und
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.