MADISON, Wis. – The Latest on a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that the founder of the Menards home improvement stores doesn’t owe his former fiancée an ownership share (all times local):
Continue Reading Below
10:25 a.m.
An attorney for the former long-term fiancée of home improvement chain founder John Menard says he’s disappointed the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled she doesn’t deserve compensation for her work related to his businesses.
Debra Sands filed a lawsuit in 2008, alleging Menard promised her an ownership share in exchange for her work for the Wisconsin-based company and Menard’s other business ventures during their nine-year relationship.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Sands isn’t entitled to compensation because she and Menard weren’t in a joint enterprise. The court says she also failed to show her contributions increased Menard’s assets.
Sands’ attorney, Daniel Shulman, says he disagrees with the ruling. He says plenty of evidence shows that Sands worked “day and night” for Menard’s business ventures and took care of his personal life.
Continue Reading Below
ADVERTISEMENT
__
This item has been updated to show that Sands was seeking compensation for her work, not a specific ownership share.
___
8:50 a.m.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says the founder of the Menards building supply stores doesn’t owe his former fiancee compensation for work she did for his business ventures.
Debra Sands filed a lawsuit in 2008, alleging that John Menard promised her an ownership share in exchange for her while they were engaged.
A state appeals court ruled in 2016 that Sands didn’t deserve compensation or damages. The Supreme Court upheld that decision Friday, ruling that Sands and Menard weren’t engaged in a joint enterprise. The court also says Sands failed to show her contributions increased Menard’s assets.
Sands’ attorney didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment Friday.
According to Forbes, Menards is the nation’s third-largest home improvement chain.
___
This item has been updated to correct that Sands was seeking compensation for her work, not a specific ownership share.
