Opinion ID: 1759354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Alleged Breaches Occurring After Termination

Text: Many of the alleged breaches by Phipps did not occur until after the agreement was terminated. Skyview claims Phipps' logbooks for the period of June 16 through June 23, 1997, indicate various violations of the agreement. However, Skyview did not receive these logbooks until after terminating the agreement. Rickertsen testified that these logbooks had no bearing on his decision to terminate the agreement. Skyview further claims Phipps breached the agreement by not picking up the next load 50 miles away from the Maryland jobsite, not returning license plates and decals, and not informing Skyview by certified mail of the dispute regarding the settlement computations within 60 days. However, each of these alleged breaches occurred after the agreement had already been terminated. The trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that many of the reasons for the termination given at trial could not be said to be material breaches triggering Skyview's right to immediately terminate because they were not known to Skyview at the time of termination. Skyview relies upon Schuessler v. Benchmark Mktg. & Consulting, 243 Neb. 425, 500 N.W.2d 529 (1993), for the proposition that such posttermination evidence may be considered when determining whether termination of a contract is justified by reason of a breach by one of the parties. However, that is clearly not the holding of Schuessler. In Schuessler, we held that posttermination evidence is admissible as bearing on the employee's recovery in a wrongful discharge suit. (Emphasis supplied.) 243 Neb. at 439, 500 N.W.2d at 540. The language of Schuessler clearly demonstrates that we did not intend for posttermination evidence to be used as a justification for termination of a contract. We stated, Because posttermination evidence of employee misconduct is necessarily discovered after an employee has been terminated, it can hardly be said to have provided a reason or `cause' for the termination. Id. Posttermination evidence bears only on the amount of recovery, id. at 440, 500 N.W.2d at 540, not on whether a breach by one party justifies the other party's termination of the contract. Considering the judgment in a light most favorable to Phipps and resolving evidentiary conflicts in his favor, giving him every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence, we conclude that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the reasons given by Skyview for terminating the agreement were pretextual. The trial court did not err in its determination that Phipps substantially performed his obligations under the contract and that Skyview improperly terminated the agreement.