Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A husband and wife entered into a premarital agreement before their 2018 marriage, which set forth a comprehensive division of assets in case of divorce. The agreement categorized both parties’ assets and anticipated inheritances as separate property, except for their marital home. It specified that, upon divorce, the wife would receive 50% of the increase in the appraised value of the marital home, paid by the husband in installments. The agreement also required proportional contributions to living expenses, allocation of taxes, and provided for attorney’s fees if either party breached the agreement.After their separation in 2021, the husband filed for divorce in 2023. Both parties sought enforcement of the premarital agreement in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division. The wife moved to enforce the agreement, including her share of the marital home’s appreciation and attorney’s fees, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the home designated as separate property. The husband claimed offsets for damages the wife allegedly caused to the home and for her failure to pay household expenses and taxes. The family division granted the wife’s motion, enforced the agreement in her favor, and awarded attorney’s fees, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the husband’s counterclaims, which it said belonged in civil court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the family division had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the premarital agreement—including claims of breach—within the context of divorce proceedings under Vermont statutes. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the family division to determine whether the wife materially breached the premarital agreement and to consider appropriate remedies, if any, consistent with principles governing such contracts. View "Gade v. Gade" on Justia Law

37celsius Capital Partners, a Milwaukee-based firm specializing in healthcare-related businesses, sought to acquire Care Innovations, a subsidiary of Intel Corporation. The parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement containing a “Hold Harmless” clause that limited damages, and subsequently executed a term sheet outlining the proposed transaction. The term sheet required 37celsius to contribute $12 million by a specified closing date and granted it an exclusivity period during which Intel could not negotiate with other parties regarding Care Innovations. The term sheet expressly limited legal obligations, stating that no binding contract would exist until a definitive agreement was executed, except for certain provisions such as confidentiality and exclusivity.After 37celsius failed to provide proof of the required funds by the closing date, Intel sold Care Innovations to another buyer. 37celsius filed suit in Wisconsin state court, alleging breach of contract based on Intel’s communications with third parties during the exclusivity period. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which ruled that 37celsius was not entitled to expectation damages under the NDA and subsequently granted summary judgment for Intel, finding no reliance damages and no evidence of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that the term sheet was not a binding “Type II” preliminary agreement under Delaware law, as its language did not obligate the parties to negotiate in good faith. Further, even if a binding obligation existed, 37celsius could not show that Intel’s alleged breach was the but-for cause of the failed transaction, as 37celsius did not have the required funds. The court also concluded that the NDA barred expectation damages and 37celsius did not appeal the denial of reliance damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Intel. View "37celsius Capital Partners, L.P. v Intel Corporation" on Justia Law

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

Industrial Park Center LLC, operating as Mainspring Capital Group, owned a commercial building in Tempe, Arizona, insured under an all-risk property insurance policy issued by Great Northern Insurance Company. The building suffered structural damage attributed to years of water exposure from routine cleaning practices by a seafood distribution tenant. After an initial incident in 2010, Mainspring took several remediation steps but did not implement all recommended preventative measures. A subsequent episode of damage was discovered in 2021, leading Mainspring to file an insurance claim. Great Northern denied coverage, citing policy exclusions such as wear-and-tear and settling, and disputed whether the loss was “fortuitous.”Mainspring initiated suit in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Northern and denied Mainspring’s motion, concluding that the loss was not fortuitous, as it was “reasonably foreseeable and almost certain to occur” given the tenant’s ongoing practices and Mainspring’s failure to take all preventative steps. The district court also awarded Great Northern attorneys’ fees.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that Arizona law does not define “fortuitous” for insurance purposes. Recognizing the issue’s novelty and importance for public policy and contract interpretation, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Arizona Supreme Court: Whether property damage is “fortuitous” when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the policy was issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken. The court’s disposition was to certify this question, not to affirm, reverse, or vacate the lower court’s judgment. View "INDUSTRIAL PARK CENTER LLC V. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

Two couples entered into a written agreement for the sale and purchase of a condominium in Idaho, using a standard real estate contract form. The property was identified by its street address, unit number, and condominium name. After agreeing to terms and signing the contract, the sellers informed the buyers that they no longer wished to sell. The buyers, who had already paid earnest money, secured financing, and prepared for closing, sought to enforce the agreement. The sellers refused to proceed, claiming the contract was unenforceable due to an inadequate property description under the statute of frauds and asserting the parties had mutually rescinded the agreement.The case was first heard in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the statute of frauds and specific performance, finding factual disputes. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the property description in the contract was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. At a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that the contract was valid, had not been rescinded or abandoned, and that the sellers breached it, awarding the buyers damages. The district court, however, granted the sellers’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding the remedy of specific performance unavailable because the buyers had not tendered the full purchase price at closing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed that the contract’s property description satisfied statutory requirements and thus dismissed the sellers’ statute of frauds defense. The court held that the district court erred in denying specific performance solely for failure to tender the full purchase price, especially since the sellers’ conduct prevented completion. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the denial of specific performance and remanded for the district court to consider equitable factors. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the buyers and awarded them costs and fees on appeal. View "McLaughlin v. Moore" on Justia Law

Two companies, Gulf Coast Investments, LLC and Trigger Energy Holdings, LLC, sold their membership interests in Blueprint Energy Partners, LLC to TCU Holdings, LLC. Blueprint, formed in 2017 for shale oil operations in Wyoming, originally had three equal members: Gulf Coast, Trigger, and TCU, with Aladdin Capital, Inc. as the manager and primary creditor. After financial struggles and interpersonal conflicts, the parties negotiated the buyout in 2019. TCU’s principal, Kent Stevens, threatened to leave and take staff and clients unless Gulf Coast and Trigger agreed to a set price, known as the “dynamite option.” Despite these threats, the plaintiffs were represented by counsel who advised them of alternatives, and negotiations spanned several months, culminating in a signed purchase agreement.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the plaintiffs’ post-sale lawsuit alleging economic duress, breach of operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, shareholder oppression, unjust enrichment, and sought accounting and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts, reasoning that the plaintiffs voluntarily entered the agreement, had legal alternatives, and that the contract itself contained a waiver of further claims. The court also addressed each substantive claim on its merits, finding no legal basis for recovery.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that, under either the three-part or two-part test for economic duress, the plaintiffs failed to show involuntary acceptance or lack of reasonable alternatives. The court also found no breach of the operating agreement or fiduciary duties, no tortious interference or shareholder oppression, and no basis for unjust enrichment or usurpation. The holding confirms the validity and enforceability of the purchase agreement and disposes of all claims against the defendants. View "Trigger Energy Holdings v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Two entities formed a limited liability company in 2012 to operate a high-end hair salon in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. One party contributed financial resources and business expertise, while the other, an established stylist, provided day-to-day management and became the public face of the business. In 2016, they amended their operating agreement to clarify their roles, contributions, and restrictions, including a provision that neither member could transfer their interest in the company without majority approval from disinterested members. The agreement required the stylist to devote all her business time to the company and prohibited competition during membership but was silent on withdrawal by a member.In 2022, after unsuccessful buyout negotiations, the stylist gave notice of her withdrawal from the company. The remaining members sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and sought a declaratory judgment requiring the stylist to continue dedicating her business time to the company. The Superior Court for Rockingham County granted in part and denied in part the stylist’s motion to dismiss, ruling her withdrawal was valid under the operating agreement and the New Hampshire Limited Liability Company Act. As a result, claims relying on her continued membership were dismissed, though the breach of contract claim for pre-withdrawal conduct was initially preserved. The plaintiffs withdrew the remaining contract claim, and the dismissal orders were finalized for appeal.Upon review, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the operating agreement did not prohibit member withdrawal and that withdrawal was not a “transfer” requiring approval under the agreement. The court determined that the stylist retained her economic interest but lost membership rights upon withdrawal, consistent with the statute. The court further found no viable claim for damages or wrongful conduct, as the withdrawal did not breach the agreement or applicable law. View "Peregrine Interests LLC v. Todd" on Justia Law

Ronald B. Panting, an independent contractor serving as a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) for the FAA, was conducting a pilot certification checkride for Michael Trubilla in a plane rented from the LeMay Aero Club, a government-affiliated organization. Both men died when the plane crashed during the checkride. Five days prior to the accident, Ronald signed a covenant not to sue the government for injuries sustained while participating in Aero Club activities, applicable to himself and his estate. His spouse, Lynne D. Panting, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent maintenance of the aircraft.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the covenant not to sue was void as against public policy under Nebraska law. The court did not address Lynne’s alternative argument that the covenant did not apply to Ronald’s activities as a DPE on the day of the crash. Following a bench trial, the district court found the government negligent and entered judgment for Lynne, awarding damages. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s decision regarding the covenant’s validity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment because the enforceability of the covenant was a purely legal issue. Applying Nebraska law, the appellate court determined the covenant was neither clearly repugnant to public policy nor the product of disparate bargaining power, and that the Aero Club did not provide a public or essential service. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of whether the covenant covered Ronald’s activities as a DPE, and for further proceedings as appropriate. View "Panting v. United States" on Justia Law

A veteran and his spouse obtained a VA-guaranteed loan to purchase a home. After the veteran’s employment was disrupted due to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the couple experienced financial hardship and defaulted on their mortgage. The lender, a bank, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The couple attempted to reinstate their mortgage by tendering the full amount to bring the loan current, as provided by the mortgage contract, but allege that the bank and its foreclosure law firm failed to accept their payment or provide a means for payment. The property was sold to third-party purchasers at a foreclosure sale for more than the outstanding loan balance. The couple claims they did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to exercise their statutory right of redemption.The third-party purchasers filed an ejectment action in Madison Circuit Court. The couple defended against the action and brought counterclaims against both the purchasers and the bank, alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory relief. The trial court dismissed all claims against the bank and the third-party purchasers and granted summary judgment on the ejectment. The couple amended their pleadings, but the trial court again dismissed all claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama. During the appeal, they settled with the third-party purchasers, leaving only their claims against the bank.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Alabama law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and affirmed dismissal of that claim. However, the Court found that the couple adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract (due to the bank’s alleged refusal to allow reinstatement), wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The Court reversed dismissal of those claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Laborde v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A property owner sought to develop a parcel of land in a town, which required rezoning and environmental review. In 2017, while preparing its zoning petition, the owner and the town entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that purported to bind the town and its successors to continue reviewing the zoning petition until a final determination was reached, based on empirical data. The owner submitted its petition and participated in the environmental review process, investing significant resources. After local elections in 2019, a new town supervisor and board, who opposed the project, voted to terminate review of the zoning petition and the related environmental process.The property owner filed suit against the town, its board, and the supervisor, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the town’s termination of the review process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the MOU was unenforceable under the term limits doctrine and contract zoning doctrine. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissed the complaint, holding the MOU invalid. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that decision.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case after granting leave to appeal. The Court held that the MOU was invalid and unenforceable under the term limits doctrine because it impermissibly bound successor town boards in the exercise of their legislative discretion over zoning matters. The Court found that such an agreement was not specifically authorized by statute or charter, and did not fall within an exception for proprietary acts. As a result, the property owner’s contractual claims failed as a matter of law. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill" on Justia Law