Chris Wanken v Dwight Wanken - Case Filed December 6, 2011 in Dallas County District Court

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION – PAGE 1No._____________

CHRIS WANKEN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff

§

______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

VS.

§

§§DWIGHT WANKEN, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendant

§§PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:Plaintiff Chris Wanken brings this action complaining of Dwight Wanken, and for causeof action shows the following:

1.

Discovery Level

Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, discovery isintended to be conducted under Level 2, T.R.C.P. 190.4.

2.

Parties and Service

The Plaintiff, Chris Wanken, is an individual who resides in Williamson County, Texas.The Plaintiff resided in Collin County, Texas at the time a substantial part of the events andomissions giving rise to the claim occurred.The Defendant, Dwight Wanken, is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas.The Defendant resided in Dallas County, Texas and Collin County, Texas at the time asubstantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The Defendantmay be served with citation at 8117 Preston Road, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225, his businessaddress or at 7019 Chevy Chase Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75225, his permanent residence.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION – PAGE 2

3.

Jurisdiction and Venue

This court has jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is within the Court’s jurisdictional limits and the Court is empowered to order the requested relief.Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas because a substantial part of the events oromissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Dallas County and the Defendant residesin Dallas County, Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.001.

4.

Professional Relationship Between Chris Wanken and Dwight Wanken

In 1997, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a binding oral partnership agreement forthe purpose of operating the financial services partnership known as Beacon Financial Advisors(“Beacon”). Under the terms of the agreement, Plaintiff and Defendant were paid regular drawsagainst profits earned by the partnership and given additional monthly distributions which werecalculated to approximate an even split of partnership profits. The parties acted at all times withreference to the partnership agreement, which included provisions for the division of profits andcompensation to the principals to the agreement.Plaintiff equally shared in the costs of the business, including leasing expenses, healthcare premiums, purchasing and maintenance of business equipment and various businessexpenses. Plaintiff and Defendant filed as Independent Contractors under the advice of a taxprofessional as represented to Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiff and Defendant made decisions jointly and divided the partnership responsibilities equally. Plaintiff acted in reliance onDefendant’s representations that they were equal partners and that their orally agreed uponpartnership and related agreements regarding succession and separation were valid and in effect.Plaintiff was responsible for performing investment analysis of their clients’ portfoliosand made virtually all recommendations to clients for asset allocation and short and long term

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION – PAGE 3financial planning. Defendant regularly referred to Plaintiff as the “brains” of the business andreferenced himself as the “mouth” of the firm. Defendant was responsible for contacting currentand potential clients and liaising directly with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.,(“Raymond James”), the broker-dealer with whom the firm was affiliated. In addition tomanaging all of the investment allocations and analysis, Plaintiff handled the firm’s accountsreceivable and accounts payable and managed technology acquisitions and functions. Theparties split the business’s responsibilities equally based on their experience, education and skillsets.In September 2007, Plaintiff’s mother and Defendant’s wife, Vicki Wanken, diedsuddenly. The parties agreed on memorializing their oral agreements that had been in effect forseveral years since they had not yet written them down. They discussed their current oralagreements and came to consensus on how to memorialize them in terms of a SuccessionAgreement (“Succession”) and a Split Agreement (“Split”) should one partner decide to leavethe business for retirement or a new job.In October 2007, just weeks after Vicki Wanken’s death, Defendant stated that he hadalready met a new woman, Kayla Katherine Kennedy Gingrich Burds, (“Kayla Burds”) and wasintending to marry her and that she wanted to join the business. Plaintiff said that he was not inagreement regarding Kayla Burds joining the business and expressed this to Defendant. At thistime, both parties had signed the Succession Agreement and agreed to the terms of the SplitAgreement.By December 2007, Defendant, and ostensibly his “new girlfriend,” demanded thatPlaintiff meet her, introduce his two young children to her, socialize with them and attendpersonal counseling with Defendant at his girlfriend’s personal counselor. On December 27,