Nikola P. Vekic v. Dragutin Popich, Mary A. Popich & Helen Harris Popich

Summary

In this dissenting opinion, the author contends that the parties' unique contract limits Mr. Vekic to recovery only for his actual loss and that any excess proceeds from the BP settlement should be divided according to law, equity, or usage, rather than being awarded entirely to the Popiches. The author disagrees with the majority’s allocation of the excess to the Popiches and urges a different equitable distribution. The case arose from a dispute over an oyster‑lease agreement and a BP settlement, and the appellate court reversed the lower court’s judgment.