FOLLOW US

In a courtroom saga blending family tension, business ambition, and legal gray areas, a Michigan judge has ruled that an $18.3 million lawsuit between two brothers over a cannabis company buyout will move forward.

Oakland County Circuit Judge Victoria A. Valentine on Tuesday denied Christopher Yatooma’s bid to dismiss the suit filed by his brother, Gregory Yatooma, who is also an attorney. The case centers on allegations that Christopher failed to pay nearly $18 million he owed under an agreement to purchase Gregory’s stake in their joint marijuana business, MSY Capital Partners LLC.

Family Business Turns into Legal Battlefield

Gregory Yatooma filed the lawsuit in May 2023, accusing his brother of paying only $500,000 of the agreed $18.3 million buyout. The dispute has already taken a legal roller-coaster ride — first filed in state court, then moved to federal court, and finally sent back to state jurisdiction in November 2024.

The complaint paints a picture of betrayal, alleging that Christopher, with help from his technology manager, Rich Stopczy, and assistant, Michelle Houbeck, gained unauthorized access to Gregory’s law firm email account at Fleming & Borowicz PLC. The breach, Gregory claims, exposed confidential client information and forced the firm to remove his name from the masthead and expel him as a partner.

Legal Loopholes and the Question of Ethics

Christopher Yatooma countered that the partnership contract is void, arguing it violated professional conduct rules barring attorneys from entering business deals with clients without full disclosure, fairness, and independent legal advice.

He claimed Gregory’s dual role as both business partner and attorney created a conflict of interest that should nullify the agreement.

But Judge Valentine wasn’t convinced. In her order, she wrote that “there remains a genuine dispute” over whether Gregory was, in fact, acting as his brother’s lawyer regarding the formation or terms of their partnership.

Gregory has denied having any attorney-client relationship with Christopher between 2015 and 2021, and the invoices presented during that period failed to clarify whether the services billed were for the partnership or for Christopher personally.

Court Sees Gray Area in Public Policy Defense

Judge Valentine also noted that even if a legal relationship existed, Christopher failed to prove that the transaction was unfair or unreasonable — key factors in voiding a deal on public policy grounds.

“Without clear evidence that the agreement disadvantaged Christopher or was structured improperly, the contract cannot be dismissed at this stage,” the judge wrote.