Sheel Kamal Seidler, the wife of soon team owner Peter Seidler, filed a lawsuit on Monday that threatens the San Diego Padres ‘ future.
Expect the defendants to contend that their sister-in-law is misinterpreting the wishes of her late husband and their late sibling in ways that undermine his reputation, as well as that they have fully performed their professional responsibilities as directors. Matt said some of this now, not in a legal filing, but in a public notice addressed to supporters on Tuesday.
Because the situation involves quickly conflicting retellings of meetings, discussions and individual intentions, see testimony will prove important. MLB officers and Padres employees, including players, who interacted with the Seidlers, particularly in regards to who appeared to be involved in significant team decisions and what Peter Seidler said about his family and brothers, are among the witnesses who could be called to testify. Sheel Seidler’s brothers-in-law, who is the man regarded by MLB as the team’s decision-maker, are a key issue in the case, and whether or not they unlawfully denied her a chance to achieve her late husband as Padres ‘ control people.
Sheel Seidler’s issue includes a thorough account of her description of the Padres ‘ possession after her husband’s passing in 2023. The main ownership interest in the Padres is one of the assets of the faith, which Peter Seidler established in his life, and it named brothers Bob, Matt, and John as the trustees of the faith. Peter and Sheel Seidler are also involved in a marital respect. As Sheel tells it, both trusts are intended to benefit her so long as she lives, as well as benefit her ( and Peter’s ) three young children. Sheel’s petition also includes a photo of what she claims was a record Peter made to record the group’s potential control officer. Her name is first on the list, followed by their kids.
Sheel Seidler’s claim that Matt and Bob Seidler have improperly mismanaged the faith to her disadvantage is at the heart of the controversy. As the” only lives beneficiary,” she accuses the two sons of abiding by various obligations. Fiduciary, publication, honesty, fidelity, competence and mitigation of self-dealing are among the responsibilities Sheel Seidler statements have been breached.
Sheel claims that by supposedly working together to improve their best interests over those of the confidence and Sheel, they broke a moral duty, which requires the beneficiary’s interests to be placed above all. They are also accused of allegedly breaking their disclosure law by failing to keep Sheel educated of” important financial transactions that they undertook to strengthen themselves.”
Matt and Bob are accused of putting their business partners before Sheel and “blocking” her from being nominated for the position of Padres Control Person” in a violation of their duty of loyalty to her. In that they oversee group decisions, review monetary transactions, and use other authorities, the command individual is typically thought of as the principal owner in accordance with MLB rules. With teams owned by trusts, the faith nominates a power people, content to MLB acceptance.
Peter Seidler was the Padres ‘ control person from 2020 to his death, though Sheel Seidler says she was his” closest advisor”. She also lists her duties, which suggests that she was actually acting in a controlled manner. To that end, Sheel says she “reviewed potential hires”, “interfaced with players ‘ agents”, “attended owners ‘ meetings”, “held strategy sessions with Peter during]meetings ‘ ] breaks”, and talked with Seidler” about their plans for signing top player talent”.
According to Sheel Seidler, as her husband battled a serious infection, they decided that a business associate, Eric Kutsenda, would serve as interim control person with the understanding that Peter would resume the role when his health improved. After Peter died, Sheel says, Bob and Matt “used” her grieving” as an opportunity” to aggrandize power and wrestle control of the club away from her.
They allegedly prevented her from taking over that role, including by denying her an interview to take over that role. According to Sheel Seidler’s narration, the two brothers ensured that their eldest brother, John Seidler, was nominated to become control person. Sheel claims that John is unqualified to work for the Padres without having a professional background. While WalterO’Malley, the renowned Dodgers owner from the 1950s through the 1970s, is the grandson of the Seidler brothers, she rejects governing the Padres as a “medieval duchy” with male descendants gaining power as a result of their lineage.
The likely legal defenses that the defendants will use to refute Sheel Seidler’s case are discussed in a letter written by Matt Seidler and released to the media on Tuesday.
In addition to disputing the truthfulness of Sheel’s narration of events, Matt contends all trust-related duties have been met and that his later brother’s wishes have been honored. Matthew claims that Peter “left clear instructions” in his will to facilitate a smooth transition, including regarding the selection of the control person. That selection, Matt emphasizes, was intentionally placed” in the hands of his trust “rather than naming or recommending someone to take on that role.
Matt Seidler also points out that Peter purposefully named his brothers as successor trustees rather than others, which he claims is in line with the fact that they collaborated for “decades” and that Peter lacked confidence in their wisdom and acumen.
Sheel Seidler claims to have been a key advisor to Peter on important Padres decisions, but Matt points out that neither Bob, John, or I have spoken to her about her potential as a potential candidate for Control Person. Matthew also asserts that Sheel” signed a sworn statement” back in 2020 that said she had no authority to be or designate the team’s manager. He adds that while Sheel” may be disappointed “her husband didn’t ( 1 ) designate her as the trustee, ( 2 ) name her control person, or ( 3 ) empower her with the authority to approve the control person, that doesn’t supply a viable legal claim against the brothers.
The Padres dispute is far from the first intra-family ownership fight in MLB history, and it certainly won’t be the last. For instance, the family of Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, a long-time owner, fought over what would happen when Peter was no longer in charge in recent years. In June 2022, one of Peter’s sons sued his brother and their mother, demanding that recent trust amendments be voided. The Orioles ‘ most significant public asset was the Angelos ‘ estate, which was heavily reliant on the conflict. Angelos bought the team in 1993 for$ 173 million, and by 2022 it was worth$ 1.6 billion, according to Sportico’s numbers. Last year, amid the in-fighting and legal challenges, the Angelos family sold the team to a group led by billionaire David Rubenstein for$ 1.73 billion.
As valuations soar and the class of owners that supervised that growth grow older, these family disagreements are likely to become more prevalent. Sports teams are often a family’s most public asset, its most valuable asset and the asset that has appreciated the most since purchase, and that’s a recipe for tension among siblings, children and grandchildren. Sportico published a number of articles about estate planning and ownership trusts two years ago.
The NFL, which has roughly 20 control owners older than 70—way more than any other major U. S. league—may feel this dynamic most acutely. That said, it also has much stricter ownership rules than MLB or its major U. S. peers. The league requires any incoming owner to own 30 % of the franchise ( and encourages more ), and have that individual serve as the control person, the sole decision-maker if needed. It’s not uncommon for NBA teams ( like the Chicago Bulls, for example ) to have 20 or more minority partners, but it’s virtually unheard of in the NFL.
Even for the non-rich and non-famous, family disputes over inheritance can trigger intense feelings of anger, distrust and betrayal. The Padres case appears to fit those characteristics. Two brothers and their sister-in-law obviously have very different historical memories, including what Peter Seidler actually wanted.
The role of supporting evidence and testimony will be crucial to resolving this dispute. Emails, text exchanges and other correspondences, particularly with Peter Seidler, will prove important since they relate to whether the duties of the trust have been adequately met. Witnesses may include MLB officials and Padres players, among others, who can provide information on who is telling the truth.
Pro sports leagues generally try to stay out of ownership disputes, especially since they give the public and journalists access to sensitive information and disclosures, but in this case, MLB might find it difficult to do so. Given that, at least as Sheel Seidler claims, the process used by baseball has been exploited to deny her control, the manner in which MLB reviews trust agreements and approves control persons could also be scrutinized in this litigation.