Receiver: Permanent Grant Sidney control may not be needed

September filings include dismissal request from Keith Weaver and a withdrawn motion from Fawn Weaver

8:15 a.m. Oct. 2, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

With the Uncle Nearest case now headed toward an October 2027 trial, September brought movement on several pieces of the lawsuit, including a notable change in the court-appointed receiver’s position on Grant Sidney Inc.

Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. told the court Sept. 23 that, after months of review, he believes it is unlikely Grant Sidney holds significant or substantial assets that would provide a recovery or benefit to the Uncle Nearest receivership. Young also said he does not believe a permanent receivership over Grant Sidney is necessary.

One part of Young’s review is still unfinished. He is waiting on historical QuickBooks records from Intuit, and he wants additional time to review them before the Grant Sidney matter is wrapped up. Fawn Weaver says the receiver can get those records without continuing to control her company.

Months of looking at Grant Sidney

U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. expanded the receivership to Grant Sidney in May. The judge ordered Young to look into whether the company held assets that properly belonged to Uncle Nearest or another company already under the receivership.

Young received more time over the summer to finish that work. By September, he told the court he had obtained most of the records he was after.

What he found did not lead him to recommend keeping Grant Sidney in receivership for the long haul. Young said significant or substantial assets that could benefit the Uncle Nearest estate were unlikely to be there. He stopped short of saying Grant Sidney held no assets at all.

One records request remains open. Young said he believes QuickBooks accounts for several Uncle Nearest receivership entities may be housed under an account associated with Grant Sidney. Earlier attempts to get the records through correspondence and certified letters went nowhere, so the receiver issued a subpoena to Intuit. Young wants to review whatever Intuit turns over before closing that part of his investigation.

Weaver wants control of Grant Sidney returned

Fawn Weaver answered the receiver’s report the next day, asking Atchley to end the Grant Sidney receivership now.

Her attorneys leaned heavily on Young’s own conclusions. He has most of the records he sought, and he does not believe permanent receiver control of Grant Sidney is necessary. Young also said significant assets benefiting the receivership are unlikely to exist.

Weaver is not asking the court to stop the Intuit subpoena. She argues there is no need for Young to control Grant Sidney while he waits for records held by a third party.

Her filing says neither Weaver nor Grant Sidney would try to block a reasonable subpoena simply because the company was no longer under the receiver. If the records turn up something Young believes justifies putting Grant Sidney back under court control, Weaver argues he can take that evidence to Atchley.

Grant Sidney is Uncle Nearest’s largest shareholder. Weaver’s filing also says the company is a substantial creditor of Uncle Nearest, including an approximately $3.69 million loan obligation that the receiver previously listed on the company’s books.

As long as Young controls both Uncle Nearest and Grant Sidney, Weaver argues, Grant Sidney cannot independently direct its own lawyers or protect its interests as a creditor and shareholder. The filing also points to Grant Sidney’s pending claims against former Uncle Nearest Chief Financial Officer Michael Senzaki and ZMS Strategies Inc. as another reason the company needs its own authority restored.

Weaver says Young’s September report does not identify a newly discovered Uncle Nearest asset being held by Grant Sidney. She also says the report does not point to a transfer that needs to be preserved or a Grant Sidney asset said to be in danger of disappearing. The Intuit records are the one item Young says he still needs.

She is asking Atchley to return control of Grant Sidney to her and let the receiver finish the Intuit inquiry without keeping the company under his control.

Keith Weaver asks court to dismiss him individually

Keith Weaver filed his own motion in September, asking the court to dismiss him individually from Farm Credit Mid-America’s lawsuit.

His motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that Farm Credit’s complaint does not set out facts that would make him personally liable for the companies’ debts. His attorneys say the complaint identifies him as a corporate officer and says he signed a deed of trust, but does not allege that he personally guaranteed the loans or took on a personal obligation to Farm Credit.

They also argue that the complaint does not accuse him of taking loan money for himself. It does not accuse him of making false statements to Farm Credit, either. His attorneys say the deed of trust was signed on behalf of the company and was not a personal promise to repay the debt.

Keith Weaver is asking Atchley to dismiss the case against him in his individual capacity.

Fawn Weaver withdraws her dismissal request

Fawn Weaver filed her own motion seeking dismissal in September, but it did not stay on the table long.

Her attorneys argued that Farm Credit named her as an individual defendant without actually stating a claim against her personally. The motion said she was not a signatory to the loan documents in her individual capacity and did not personally guarantee the debt.

The filing also argued that Farm Credit’s complaint did not accuse her of fraud or conspiracy. It did not, according to Weaver’s attorneys, set out another independent basis for holding her personally liable.

On Sept. 24, Weaver asked to withdraw that motion and have it struck from the docket. Her filing said no response was yet due and no party had answered the motion, so withdrawing it would not cause prejudice or delay. The two-page filing did not say why she decided not to pursue it. Keith Weaver’s separate motion was not withdrawn in the filings reviewed by the Observer.

Another deadline moves to October

Young also asked for more time to answer Farm Credit’s motion seeking dismissal of the companies’ counterclaim.

Farm Credit filed that motion in July. Young’s response was due Sept. 11 after an earlier extension, but he asked Atchley to move the deadline again, this time to Oct. 15.

The receiver said the extra time would allow his attorneys to review Farm Credit’s arguments and prepare their response. His filing also said they were continuing to work with Farm Credit toward a possible resolution of the case. Farm Credit did not oppose the extension.

Atchley granted the request Sept. 17, but he added a warning. The judge said further requests to move briefing deadlines would be disfavored and should be based on good cause involving circumstances the parties or their attorneys could not reasonably have anticipated. The receiver’s response to Farm Credit is due Oct. 15.

Waiting on Intuit

Of all the filings in September, Grant Sidney is where the case looks different heading into October.

The company was brought under the receivership in May so Young could find out whether assets belonging to Uncle Nearest had landed there. He has now told the judge that he has most of the records he sought and does not expect to find significant assets that would benefit the receivership. He also does not believe Grant Sidney needs to remain under permanent receiver control.

Young still wants the QuickBooks records before he is finished, and Weaver says he is welcome to get them. Her position is simply that he does not need to keep control of Grant Sidney while he does it.