Freedom Fin. Group v. Woolley -- supplemental opinion

Moreover, as is noted by the State, Fleming’s minimum sen-
tence is just 5 years more than the mandatory minimum for the
crimes for which he was convicted. Both F.K. and A.S. have
nightmares because of the abuse perpetrated by Fleming, as
well as continuing emotional problems. The sentences imposed
on Fleming were not excessive; the district court did not abuse
its discretion in so sentencing Fleming. Fleming’s final assign-
ment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
The 	judgment 	and 	sentences 	of 	the 	district 	court 	are
affirmed.
A ffirmed.
Wright, J., not participating.
freedom finAnciAl group, inc., et Al ., AppellAnts , v.
JAnice m. Woolley, individuAlly, et Al ., Appellees.
794 N.W.2d 142
Filed December 30, 2010. 	No. S-09-1302.
supplementAl opinion
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: mArlon
A. polk, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi-
fied. Motion for rehearing overruled.
Thomas A. Grennan and Francie C. Riedmann, of Gross &
Welch, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
Michael L. Schleich and Timothy J. Thalken, of Fraser
Stryker, P.C., L.L.O., for appellees.
heAvicAn, c.J., connolly, gerrArd, stephAn, mccormAck,
and miller-lermAn, JJ.
per curiAm.
Case No. S-09-1302 is before this court on the motion for
rehearing filed by appellants regarding our opinion reported at
Freedom Fin. Group v. Woolley, ante p. 825, 792 N.W.2d 134
982 	280 NeBRASKA RePORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:46 AM CST

(2010). We overrule the motion but, for purposes of clarifica-
tion, modify the opinion as follows:
In the section of the opinion designated “FACTS”:
We withdraw the first three paragraphs, id. at 827-28, 792
N.W.2d at 137, and substitute the following:
Presidents 	Trust 	was 	an 	independent, 	nondeposi-
tory limited liability company (LLC) chartered in South
Dakota. FFG was the sole member of Presidents Trust.
Bethel 	enterprises 	is 	the 	parent 	company 	to 	FFG,
Freedom 	Group, 	Freedom 	Financial, 	Freedom 	Asset
Management, Mid-America employment Services, and
U.S. 	Securities 	Management. 	Simply 	stated, 	Bethel
enterprises owned FFG, which was in turn the sole owner
of Presidents Trust.
On or about July 10, 2003, Presidents Trust, through
various marketing agents, began soliciting individuals to
invest in its “Fixed Income Trust” concept (FIT Program).
David Klasna, president of both FFG and Presidents
Trust, stated in his deposition that Presidents Trust was
the only entity allowed to market the FIT Program, an
investment concept.
On July 18, 2003, Presidents Trust sought legal counsel
from Woolley, of Marks Clare, regarding the legalities of
the FIT Program. Woolley and Marks Clare provided an
opinion letter addressed to Klasna. In that letter, Woolley
stated that the FIT Program was exempt from registration
under South Dakota statutes. In the opinion letter, Woolley
indicated that she and Marks Clare had “confined our
review to the South Dakota statutes, administrative rules
and Federal statutes.” Subsequent to the issuing of the
opinion letter, Presidents Trust began marketing the FIT
Program in earnest. The Securities exchange Commission
(SeC) began an investigation shortly thereafter.
Further, we withdraw the 10th and 11th paragraphs of
that section, id. at 829-30, 792 N.W.2d at 138, and substitute
the following:
In Klasna’s deposition, he also stated that he had asked
Woolley to look at federal securities law as well as South
Dakota state banking law. Klasna stated that he was aware
FReeDOM FIN. GROUP v. WOOLLey 	983
Cite as 280 Neb. 982

that “things of this nature were regulated as securities”
and that they were hoping to find an exemption. He also
claimed to have said as much to Woolley. Klasna admit-
ted that he did not remember whether he had specifically
asked Woolley to look into securities law, but he said that
it was implied, if not stated outright.
Klasna stated that FFG had collected funds for the sale
of the FIT Program before Woolley rendered her opin-
ion, but that those funds were put in safekeeping until
they were certain the FIT Program could be released.
Klasna could not recall a specific conversation with
Woolley about whether the FIT Program was a security
until after investors raised the issue. Klasna alleged that
even after investors questioned whether the FIT Program
required registration, Woolley continued to assure him
that the FIT Program met the definition of a trust and
was exempt. Klasna also stated he did not believe that
Woolley understood the FIT Program or the potential
securities problems.
The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
former opinion modified.
motion for reheAring overruled.
Wright, J., not participating.
BryAn s. Behrens , An individuAl , et Al ., AppellAnts And
cross -Appellees , v. christiAn r. Blunk , An individuAl ,
et Al ., Appellees And cross -AppellAnts.
792 N.W.2d 159
Filed December 30, 2010. 	No. S-10-342.
1. Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a trial
court’s sanction for failure to comply with a proper discovery order for abuse
of discretion.
2. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when reasons
or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a
substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. As to questions of law, an appellate court
decides such questions independently of the lower court’s conclusions.
984 	280 NeBRASKA RePORTS