Peter Seidler's wife drops bombshell statement summing up Padres' ownership problems

Sheel Seidler, the widow of late San Diego Padres owner Peter Seidler, addressed Padres fans directly in a letter this morning, where she explained her decision to take legal action against Robert and Matt Seidler, Peters brothers. Sheel writes that she is seeking to be named control person for the San Diego Padres, citing herself as the holder of the largest individual ownership stake in the team, and the sole beneficiary of Seidler trusts, which gives her exclusive rights to control of the team.

Both Robert and Matt are said to have breached their fiduciary duty and committed fraud in the letter from Sheel, who goes on to say the decision to take legal action was "not a decision I made lightly," but urges it was the correct one to protect the interests of the franchise.

Lawsuit alledges fraud and racist comments directed towards Sheel

Filed in Travis County, Texas, the lawsuit alleges that both Matt and Robert breached their duties as trustees of the Seidler Trust that controls the franchise, where they attempted to make themselves sole heirs of Peter, against his wishes that the team stays in his wife's full control and is passed down to their children. Sheel says they have "irreconcilable conflicts of interest," and has accused the brothers of selling trust-assets to themselves "far-below-market prices" in order to gain more control of the team.

The lawsuit also alleges multiple instances of racial abuse towards Sheel, who is of Indian descent, by Robert's wife. Both racist and sexist motivations to take over the franchise from Sheel by the two brothers were referenced in the lawsuit, as Sheel claims the two brothers did not want the team to fall into the hands of "an Indian-American woman."

Sheel aims at having Matt Seidler removed from the Seidler Trust, while a receivership takes control of the trust property. Additional actual and exemplary damages, as well as attorney fees are also being sought in the lawsuit, as well as having the defendants denied compensation from the Seidler Trust.