Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff financed his home with a VA loan in 2003, qualifying due to his military service. After failing to make payments for at least ten years, the loan was assigned to HSBC Bank USA and serviced by Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS). HSBC eventually foreclosed on the property in 2022 and sold it to Northsky, LLC. The VA Servicing Guidelines, which were incorporated into the mortgage contract, required HSBC to notify the plaintiff of the default and explore options to cure it. SLS claimed to have mailed multiple payoff statements and a notice of default to the plaintiff, but he asserted he never received these communications.The plaintiff brought suit in Texas state court against HSBC, SLS, and Northsky, alleging violations of federal and Texas law and seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale. HSBC and SLS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court granted partial summary judgment for HSBC and SLS, permitting the plaintiff to proceed on claims for violations of the VA Servicing Guidelines, quiet title, and trespass to try title. At a bench trial, HSBC and SLS presented circumstantial evidence of mailing, relying on business records and testimony from a corporate representative. The district court found this evidence sufficient and, applying the mailbox rule, presumed the plaintiff received the notices, concluding the defendants fulfilled their obligations under the VA Servicing Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal, applying a deferential standard to the district court’s factual findings. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the mailbox rule based on the evidence presented and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of receipt. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Rummans v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from a vehicle lease agreement, leading Ari Law P.C. to file a Second Amended Complaint in May 2024 against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC and other defendants. Ari Law alleged breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, unfair business practices, fraud, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The San Mateo County Superior Court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer as to counts 2, 3, and 6 (warranty claims and Rosenthal Act claim) without leave to amend. Despite this, Ari Law included these dismissed counts in a Third Amended Complaint filed in September 2024. BMW FS repeatedly requested Ari Law to withdraw the improper claims, but Ari Law refused. BMW FS then served Ari Law with a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7, initially noticing a hearing for January 17, 2025, and later re-serving and filing the motion with a hearing date of March 18, 2025.The trial court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer to the same counts without leave to amend, and after considering the sanctions motion, imposed monetary sanctions of $29,055 against Ari Law and its counsel. Ari Law challenged the sanctions order, arguing that the notice of motion did not comply with statutory requirements due to differing hearing dates and insufficient time for the safe harbor period. The trial court rejected these procedural objections, finding that Ari Law had adequate notice and opportunity to address the motion, and denied Ari Law’s motion for reconsideration.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the discrepancy in hearing dates between the served and filed notices did not invalidate the sanctions order, so long as the substance of the motion remained the same and the safe harbor provisions were strictly satisfied. The court affirmed the sanctions order, denied BMW FS’s request for sanctions on appeal, and awarded BMW FS costs. View "Ari Law v. Autonation.com" on Justia Law

A group of Colombian plaintiffs retained two attorneys under a contingency fee agreement to sue a multinational corporation for allegedly funding a paramilitary group that murdered their relatives. The agreement specified that the attorneys would receive one-third of any monetary award obtained before trial. A conflict soon arose between the attorneys after one joined a law firm, leading to disputes over representation and eventual court intervention. The case was consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and over time, one attorney was discharged, with the court instructing the discharged attorney’s firm to file a charging lien to preserve its claim for fees and costs.After a settlement was reached that allocated $12.8 million to the plaintiffs and their counsel, the discharged firm moved to enforce its charging lien against the attorney’s share of the recovery. The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who recommended nearly full payment to the firm. The district court adopted this recommendation, ordered the disputed funds to be held in the court registry pending appeal, and required that the funds not be disbursed until appellate review was exhausted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order enforcing the charging lien. The Eleventh Circuit held that such orders do not fall within the collateral-order doctrine because they do not resolve important issues separate from the merits and are not effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The court explained that attorneys’ contractual or equitable rights to payment do not implicate substantial public interests or values of a high order and can be adequately reviewed after final judgment. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP" on Justia Law

Two individuals, both former members of several Missouri limited liability companies operating as a commercial insurance brokerage, entered into contracts with their company containing Missouri choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses, as well as customer non-solicitation covenants. The agreements required members to follow certain operating agreements, which included a provision allowing termination of membership interests upon 30 days’ notice. Despite this, both individuals resigned “effective immediately” and began working for a competitor. The company sued them in federal court in Missouri to enforce the contractual terms, while the former members filed lawsuits in California state court seeking to void the agreements.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the company on the enforceability of the Missouri forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses, finding the individuals breached the forum-selection clauses by suing in California. The court also found the customer non-solicitation covenants enforceable to the extent the company sought to enforce them. However, it granted summary judgment to the former members on claims that they breached the notice provision and related fiduciary duties, and on certain other contract and tort claims. The court awarded the company attorneys’ fees for the Missouri litigation but only nominal damages for the forum-selection clause breaches, declining to award fees incurred in the California actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on the enforceability of the choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses, as well as the customer non-solicitation covenants. It reversed the findings on the notice provision and fiduciary duty, holding these were breached, and directed entry of judgment for the company on those claims. The court vacated the nominal damages for the forum-selection clause breaches, instructing the district court to determine actual damages, and affirmed the attorneys’ fee awards to the company. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "West Series of Lockton Companies, LLC v. Kaufman" on Justia Law

An agricultural supply company sought to recover payment for cattle feed delivered to a dairy farm owned by a married couple, Melissa and Jason. The couple separated in 2018, agreeing that Melissa would no longer be responsible for farm expenses. Jason continued operating the farm, and the company allowed him to accumulate a large debt, expecting it to be paid after the couple’s divorce. Jason died before the divorce was finalized, after which Melissa ceased farming and sold the cattle. The company then sued Melissa to recover the outstanding feed account balance, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and detrimental reliance.The Vermont Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Civil Division, denied summary judgment for the company on its contract claim and granted partial summary judgment for Melissa, concluding that a novation had occurred, releasing Melissa from future obligations. At trial, the court treated the summary judgment ruling as the law of the case, and ultimately found that a novation occurred when the company and Jason agreed that he alone would pay the debt. The court also found that the company had waived its unjust enrichment claim by not contesting summary judgment on that count and, even had it not, the claim would be barred by unclean hands.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court found the trial court erred in concluding a novation had occurred, holding there was no evidence that the company intended to release Melissa from her contractual obligations. The Supreme Court held that, absent evidence of a mutual agreement to discharge Melissa’s obligations, the finding of novation was clearly erroneous. The Court also held that the company failed to preserve its arguments regarding unjust enrichment for appeal. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings solely on the contract claim. View "Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. St. Pierre" on Justia Law

A developer formed a company in 2006 and purchased property in the Town of West Yellowstone, Montana, intending to construct a 48-unit condominium project. The developer obtained a building permit and a “Will Serve Letter” from the Town, confirming that water, sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided. Construction began in 2007 but ceased in 2011, after which the building permit expired due to inactivity. The developer did not reapply for a permit, nor did it renew related approvals. In 2019, the Town adopted a resolution limiting new wastewater connections due to capacity concerns. In 2020, the developer attempted to sell the property, contingent on confirmation that service connections would still be honored. The Town responded that hookups would be permitted when capacity allowed but did not guarantee immediate service.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the Town’s argument that the developer’s claims were time-barred under statutory limitations, ruling that the claims accrued only when the Town refused to guarantee connections in 2020. However, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Town on the merits, finding that the Will Serve Letter did not create an enforceable contract or vested right to service after years of inactivity and expired permits, and that the Town did not owe a special duty under the public duty doctrine.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that the developer’s claims were timely but that, even assuming a contract existed, any right to service under the Will Serve Letter expired after a prolonged period of project inactivity and lapsed permits. The Court further held that the Town owed no special duty to the developer beyond its general obligations to the public, and summary judgment for the Town was appropriate. View "West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone" on Justia Law

Two families who had a long-standing personal and professional relationship worked together on real estate projects, with one family providing financing and the other managing remodeling. Their arrangement involved consolidating outstanding debts from two properties into a single promissory note secured by a deed of trust, with a substantial balloon payment due after one year. After disagreements arose about the scope of renovations for a particular property, their relationship deteriorated. Eventually, the financier purchased the property from the remodelers through an escrow process in which a portion of the purchase price was transferred back to the financier to satisfy the outstanding note.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of the remodelers. The court found that the financier had been fully repaid through the escrow process and, as a result, suffered no damages. Additionally, the court held that a covenant not to sue, which had been negotiated as part of the property sale, barred the financier’s lawsuit. In a prior appeal regarding other parties, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a similar summary judgment due to the financier’s failure to cite record evidence. After the remaining cross-claims were dismissed, final judgment was entered for the remaining defendants.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case independently and affirmed the judgment. The court held that when undisputed evidence shows a debt has been repaid, subjective beliefs or unexplained testimony cannot create a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court rejected the financier’s argument that the repayment was illusory or self-funded, as the objective record showed the debt was satisfied through the escrow transfer. The court also ruled that arguments regarding other forms of damages were forfeited because they were not raised in the trial court. Costs were awarded to the respondents. View "Buchheim v. Anaya" on Justia Law

Cowboy Racing was formed in Wyoming with two members: EFTI, which held a 51% interest and was managed by William Edwards, and Dillinger’s, with a 49% interest, managed by Ryan Clement. The company’s operating agreement appointed Edwards and Clement as the initial managers and set out procedures for removing a manager, including both a for-cause provision and a mechanism for removal with the consent of a majority interest. In February 2025, EFTI, holding the majority interest, removed Clement as a manager citing his unauthorized expenditures. Despite his removal, Clement continued to act as though he had authority on behalf of Cowboy Racing.EFTI and Cowboy Racing then filed suit in the District Court of Laramie County, seeking a declaration that Clement could not act on behalf of the company, enforcement of a purchase right under the operating agreement, damages for breach of a letter of intent, and, relevant here, a preliminary injunction to prevent Clement from representing himself as a manager. Clement objected, arguing that the removal process was procedurally and substantively improper and conflicted with the operating agreement.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The Court held that while the district court’s order was inartfully phrased as a final determination, it properly found that Cowboy Racing and EFTI were likely to succeed on their claim that Clement was lawfully removed under the operating agreement. The Court concluded the agreement was unambiguous and that EFTI, as the majority member, had the authority to remove Clement with express written consent. The preliminary injunction was affirmed, but the parties retain the right to present further evidence at trial on the merits. View "Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC" on Justia Law

Lakeshore Investments loaned over $1.7 million to NOW Solutions, Inc., secured by a promissory note and collateral agreement. When NOW Solutions defaulted, the parties amended the payment terms multiple times, eventually adding Vertical Computer Systems as a co-debtor. Despite these amendments, NOW Solutions fell behind on payments again, and Lakeshore filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. During litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement: NOW Solutions and its parent agreed to pay $450,000 in three installments, with a provision that failure to pay would entitle Lakeshore to a stipulated judgment of $1.5 million plus interest.After defendants defaulted on the final installment and failed to cure their default, Lakeshore requested entry of the $1.5 million judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendants objected, arguing the amount was an unenforceable penalty. The Superior Court granted Lakeshore’s request without making specific findings beyond confirming the default.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, considered whether the $1.5 million stipulated judgment was a valid liquidated damages provision or an unenforceable penalty under Civil Code section 1671. The appellate court held that, because the $1.5 million amount bore no reasonable relationship to the damages that could have been anticipated from breach of the settlement, it constituted a penalty and was unenforceable. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to determine the actual damages suffered by Lakeshore as a result of the breach. The court awarded costs on appeal to the defendants. View "Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Two foreign nationals from the United Kingdom rented vehicles from a car rental company during separate visits to the United States. Each used a third-party website to reserve vehicles and selected a package that included supplemental liability insurance. Upon arriving at the rental location, they signed rental forms and received a “rental jacket” that contained additional terms, including a statement that supplemental liability insurance would be provided via an excess automobile policy and an arbitration clause requiring most disputes to be resolved through arbitration.Later, the customers believed the company did not actually secure the promised insurance policy but intended to pay claims from its own funds. They filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a violation of Florida’s consumer protection law. The District Court dismissed the fraud and statutory claims but allowed the contract claim to proceed. The defendants, Budget and its parent company, reserved their right to arbitrate and pursued discovery. After deposing the plaintiffs, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs were aware of the arbitration clause when they received the rental jackets.The District Court denied the motion, finding that by litigating into discovery before moving to compel arbitration, the defendants had impliedly waived their right to arbitrate. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver determination de novo. The Third Circuit held that the defendants did not impliedly waive their right to arbitrate. Because factual development was necessary to determine arbitrability under a prior circuit decision, the defendants’ conduct—reserving their arbitration right and moving to compel after depositions—was not inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings on the motion to compel arbitration. View "Parkin v. Avis Rent a Car System LLC" on Justia Law