Prodata Computer Services, Inc. v. Ponec

256 Neb. 228 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D began to work for P on a full-time basis in about 1982. D's employment duties were accounting and financial matters. D was responsible for billings, collections, deposits, expense payments, and bank accounts. During approximately the first 6 years of his employment with P, D continued to maintain his separate computer consulting business, and that he kept all of the proceeds generated by it. D provided a general report on P's finances every 3 to 4 months. The reports contained little detail. In November 1995, things didn't add up, and the owners of P, Hartley, and Wamsat personally examined the records. They quickly detected substantial irregularities. They also hired their own accountant to aid them in their examination of accounts. They immediately found checks for large sums of cash as payments to fictitious vendors. They also found that D was making investments and buying jewelry, clothing, guns, and a country club membership all on P. P also funded monthly payments for D's personally owned Mercedes Benz automobile. D had also taken customer checks made payable to P for professional services and deposited them directly into his own checking account. P sued D seeking a judgment of $754,523.06 for fraud, conversion, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary obligations, and breach of his employment contract with P. P obtained pretrial attachment of D's home and investment accounts and P added a cause of action seeking imposition of a constructive trust upon these assets and others owned by D. D claimed that P ratified all of his actions and that P's claims against him were barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel and P's contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of ProData for $579,507.30. The trial court imposed a constructive trust on all property belonging to D, in an amount not to exceed the amount of the jury verdict. The trial court granted P's motion for $114,471 in prejudgment interest. D appealed.