Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02670/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02670-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

WALTER G. 

INC. 

v. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEINSHEIMER COMPANIES, ) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) No. 

) (D.C. No. 

FILED 

Uaitecl States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 1 3 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

86-2670 

CIV-86-313-W) 

) (W .D. Okla.) 

F. DAIL HARPER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Walter G. Seinsheimer Companies, Inc. brought suit 

against defendant F. Dail Harper to hold him personally liable for 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 1 
the balance of a judgment plaintiff obtained against the Harper 

Land and Cattle Company (the "Cattle Company"). The jury returned 

a verdict against defendant and the district court awarded 

plaintiff attorneys' fees. Defendant appeals from the district 

court's denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the 

verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial. Defendant also 

appeals from the order awarding attorneys' fees. We affirm. 

Facts 

The Cattle Company was incorporated in 1973 or 1974 for the 

purpose of running cattle on the Harper Ranch, which was owned by 

defendant and his family. Defendant was the sole shareholder of 

the Cattle Company. 

In 1981, plaintiff entered into a contract with Cattle 

Company whereby plaintiff agreed to render consultative and 

advisory services to Cattle Company in connection with a multiyear, multi-million dollar development of the Harper Ranch. After 

family disputes, the development project folded, and the Cattle 

Company unilaterally terminated its contract with plaintiff. 

Plaintiff originally brought suit against the Cattle Company 

and recovered a judgment for the sum of $85,000 plus $30,000 in 

attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff recovered $6,844.61 in partial 

satisfaction of this debt before the Cattle Company became 

insolvent. 

Plaintiff subsequently brought this suit against defendant 

under alter ego and agency theories to hold defendant personally 

liable for the balance of the judgment against the Cattle Company. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 2 
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff under both the 

alter ego and agency theories for the sum of $108,175.39, with 

interest thereon and costs. The district court also awarded 

plaintiff $12,000 in attorneys' fees. Defendant moved for 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, new trial, 

which the district court denied. Defendant now appeals. 

Issues 

Defendant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether plaintiff 

is barred under the doctrine of res judicata from pursuing a claim 

against defendant because defendant's liability could have been 

litigated in the previous action against the Cattle Company; (2) 

whether the district court erred in allowing the jury to find 

defendant liable under the agency theory when that theory was 

presented for the first time in the Pretrial Conference Order; 

(3) whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to sustain a 

verdict under the agency theory; (4) whether the a plaintiff must 

prove fraud in order to pierce the corporate veil; and (5) whether 

the court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees. 

I. RES JUDICATA 

Defendant argues in general terms that plaintiff is barred 

under the claim preclusion doctrine of res judicata from bringing 

this action because defendant's liability could have been 

litigated in the previous action against the Cattle Company. This 

issue was not properly raised below in defendant's Motion for 

Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict or, alternatively, Motion 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 3 
for New Trial. Thus, it is not properly preserved on appeal. 

Nevertheless, if we were to reach the issue we would conclude that 

it is without merit because while it is true that plaintiff could 

have proceeded against defendant in the previous action, plaintiff 

was not required to do so. See Ponderosa Development Corp. v. 

Bjordahl, 787 F.2d 533, 536 (10th Cir. 1986) ("The defendants 

against whom plaintiffs seek to assert their alter ego claim were 

not 'opposing' parties [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)] in the 

earlier action .... Because plaintiffs' [present] claim against 

defendants was not against an opposing party in the earlier 

action, it is not barred by the compulsory counterclaim 

doctrine."). 

II. AGENCY THEORY 

Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in submitting 

the agency theory to the jury because that theory was mentioned 

for the first time as an issue in plaintiff's portion of the 

pretrial order. 1 We find no merit to defendant's argument. 

Defendant's counsel signed the pretrial order without any 

objection. In fact, defendant made no objection to the inclusion 

1 Plaintiff's issues in the pretrial order are as follow: 

(a) Whether Harper Land and Cattle Company was so 

organized, controlled, and its affairs so 

conducted, that it was but a mere adjunct and alter 

ego of the Defendant, such as to create personal 

liability of the Defendant? 

(b) Whether Harper Land and Cattle Company executed the 

contract with Plaintiff as agent of the Defendant 

so as to create personal liability? 

(Doc. 39, emphasis added.) 

-4-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 4 
of the agency issue until the first day of trial. Although 

defendant's objection may have been well-taken if it had been made 

during the pretrial conference when the issue first came to his 

attention, we believe the objection was untimely and did not 

preserve the issue for our review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 46 ("it is 

sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or the order of 

the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action 

which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action 

of the court and his grounds therefor}; see also Neu v. Grant, 548 

F.2d 281, 286-88 (10th Cir. 1977). 

III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ON AGENCY 

Defendant argues that plaintiff presented no evidence to 

support a verdict on the agency theory. 2 A judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict may be granted "only if the evidence 

points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences 

supporting the party [opposing the motion]; we must construe the 

evidence and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party." 

Zimmerman v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 1047, 1051 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

We find sufficient evidence in the record to support a 

verdict finding that the Cattle Company was an agent to defendant: 

2 In a related argument, defendant asserts that under the doctrine 

of election of remedies, plaintiff is barred from recovering 

against him as a principal to the contract when plaintiff had 

already recovered against the Cattle Company, the alleged agent. 

Defendant did not raise this issue below, so we need not consider 

it on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976} 

(federal appellate courts generally do not consider issues not 

raised below}; United States v. Richard, 738 F.2d 1120, 1121 n.2 

(10th Cir. 1984} (same}. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 5 
[Direct examination of plaintiff by plaintiff's 

attorney:] 

Q. Let's concentrate for a few minutes on the 

development scheme behind the project. What is your 

understanding from the family's point of view as to who 

was spearheading the project? 

A. This was [Harper's] project, no question about it. 

A. These documents indicated that a corporation or a 

partnership would be formed. There were different 

types, different entities would be formed by [Harper] to 

be the general partner and the developer/partner of the 

ranch lands and that other family members would be 

limited partners and invest, in essence, put the land 

into the deal. [Harper] would be the developer and 

there was a whole series of these documents I looked at. 

Q. Why were you told that it was Harper Land and 

Cattle Company that was to sign this contract? 

A. Only was because it was a temporary vehicle that he 

was using. It was a corporation that he totally 

controlled and none of the other family members were 

involved in that corporation. 

Q. What were you told was the need for a temporary 

vehicle? 

A. I was told by [Harper] that the need for the 

company -- the corporation was that it was only 

temporary until they formed the development company, 

which would be the actual development corporation for 

the ranch land, for the ranch development. And that 

this was only a temporary vehicle. 

A. That [the Cattle Company] had been in business for 

a long time and he said, you know, ''Stop it, don't worry 

about it. You are doing business with me anyway." 

[Direct examination of defendant by plaintiff's 

attorney:] 

-6-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 6 
Q. Do we understand correctly that it was never the 

intent that Harper Land and Cattle Company, the 

corporation which you own, was to ultimately be the 

responsible party for the fees of [plaintiff]? 

A. Well, yeah, I assume that's right. 

Q. [Plaintiff] knew that he was dealing with you, Mr. 

Dail Harper, did he not? 

A. Yes. 

(Tr. at 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 128.) 

The above quoted portions of the record leave us with no 

doubt that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict that 

the Cattle Company was the agent of defendant. 

IV. ALTER EGO 

Defendant argues that the district court erroneously 

instructed the jury on the necessary elements of alter ego. 

Because the jury separately and independently found for plaintiff 

on the alternate theory of agency, which is supported by the 

record (Doc. 44 at 1.), we need not address the propriety of the 

jury instruction on alter ego. 

V. ATTORNEYS' FEES 

Defendant argues that the district court erred in awarding 

plaintiff attorneys' fees. Defendant argues that 12 Okla. Stat. 

Ann. § 936, which allows attorneys' fees for certain civil 

actions, does not proved for attorneys' fees in actions to hold a 

principal or alter ego liable on a debt. We disagree. The issue 

tried in this case is whether defendant is liable to plaintiff 

under the contract. The fact that the amount of liability had 

-7-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 7 
already been established in the previous action does not diminish 

the true nature of this case, which is defendant's personal 

liability under the contract. Therefore, we find no fault with 

the district court's award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff under 

Oklahoma law. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment and award 

of attorneys' fees against defendant. 

Entered for the Court 

DAVID M. EBEL 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 86-2670 Document: 01019973489 Date Filed: 09/13/1989 Page: 8