Opinion ID: 6346156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ottemann’s FA original contract

Text: Ottemann’s remaining breach of contract allegations concern provisions of his FA Contract. Ottemann alleges that the Order impermissibly deducted debt accrued by the FAs under his management as a GA from recurring commissions he was due from his time as an FA. Ottemann’s complaint does not identify any particular provision of the FA contract that the Order allegedly violated. His briefing discusses Section 7(c) of the FA contract, which allowed deductions to his own FA commissions on account of “the Field Agent’s indebtedness to the [O]rder.” From there, Ottemann argues that this creates liability only for debts incurred in his capacity as an FA. He contends this is so based on the FA agreement’s statement that the commission reduction was subject to “payment of the Field Agent’s indebtedness to the Order, including but not limited to” a number of FA-specific expenses and obligations. The Order reads the Section 7(c) deduction allowance more broadly. According to the Order, because “Field Agent” is a defined term that refers at all times in that contract to Eric Ottemann, “the Field Agent’s indebtedness to the Order” extends beyond any indebtedness that Ottemann might incur in his capacity as an FA and extends to any indebtedness he might have incurred at any future point. The Order argues this provision permits it to deduct debts that Ottemann became responsible for in his capacity as a GA against compensation he was due under his old (but never novated or cancelled) FA agreement. We hold that the contract is ambiguous as to the scope of the FA’s indebtedness to the Order under Section 7(c) of the FA contract. It may be entirely reasonable that the Order would expect any future debts under 11 Case: 21-30138 Document: 00516340925 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/02/2022 No. 21-30138 subsequent contracts to count against Ottemann’s earnings under the original FA contract. On the other hand, given that the FA contract has no provision governing elevation to a GA position, nor does it refer to any future contractual relationships, it is ambiguous as to whether “the Field Agent’s indebtedness to the Order” contemplates indebtedness incurred under other contracts as well as indebtedness incurred under the original FA contract. Accordingly, Ottemann’s breach of contract claim as it relates to Section 7(c) of his FA contract survives the motion to dismiss stage.