This suit arose from the actions of iStar’s Board of Directors in modifying performance-based executive compensation awards, which were granted in the form of stock. Petitioners filed suit against current and former members of iStar’s Board and senior management, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The circuit court dismissed all of Petitioners’ claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petitioners’ claims were properly dismissed by the circuit court for failure to overcome the business judgment rule presumption; and (2) furthermore, Petitioners’ claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are derivative claims that are subject to the business judgment rule. View "Oliveira v. Sugarman" on Justia Law

Jeremy and Jessica Litster appealed a district court dismissal on summary judgment. The case concerned the enforceability of three promissory notes, which were prepared and issued by Jeremy to Jason Lee , Scott McNab, and a non-party, Rick Lee. In February 2009, Jeremy learned of an "investment opportunity" that required a minimum buy-in of $500,000. Jeremy and Jason solicited close friends and family to "invest" by transferring money to them, which would later be transferred to Jeremy's relative, Marc Jenson. Ultimately, the "investment" failed, and Plaintiffs and other "investors" looked to Jeremy for repayment. Jeremy made payments on these promissory notes. However, in July 2011, Jeremy stopped making payments because he learned that the Idaho Department of Finance had been notified regarding his investment solicitation activity. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Litsters in 2014, alleging three counts of breach of contract for failure to pay the amounts due according to the promissory notes. The Litsters answered asserting, inter alia, the affirmative defense that the notes were issued under duress. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment of the issues of breach of contract and duress. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion. On the issue of duress, the district court found in Plaintiffs' favor under two different legal theories: (1) the Litsters failed to provide sufficient evidence of their claim for duress to create a genuine issue of material fact; and (2) the district court noted that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Jeremy ratified the promissory notes by making payments thereon. It concluded that, in addition to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the Litsters' "claim for duress fails because [Jeremy ] ratified the contracts by making payments on the [n]otes." The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, finding that the Litsters failed to contest the alternate grounds upon which the summary judgment was granted. View "Lee v. Litster" on Justia Law

In June 2002, defendant Ron Miller entered into an open account agreement with plaintiff Union Lumber Company for the purchase of building supply materials. In July 2010, plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Ron Miller and his spouse Linda Miller, seeking $17,865 as the unpaid balance on the account. The complaint alleged that defendants' son, Ean Miller, had purchased building materials from plaintiff, charging those materials to the Miller account with his father's authority. The complaint further alleged that the materials that Ean purchased were delivered to properties that defendants owned and were used to improve those properties and that, for several years, defendants had paid the charges that Ean had made on the account. The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion under ORCP 71 B(1) to set aside a general judgment entered against them on grounds of excusable neglect and mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the judgment was entered as a result of mistakes made by plaintiff and a court-appointed arbitrator with respect to the service of case-related documents on defendants. Because the Supreme Court concluded that defendants were not entitled to relief from the judgment on the grounds asserted, it reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's order denying defendants' motion to set aside the judgment. View "Union Lumber Co. v. Miller" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was (1) how Utah Code 30-3-5(1)(e) should be interpreted in correlation with Utah Code 75-2-804, and (2) the proper interpretation of “express terms” in section 75-2-804(2). Tyler Hertzske and Linda Snyder each claimed sole entitlement to the death benefits of a life insurance policy held by Edward Hertzske, deceased. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyler, concluding that Tyler was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In so holding, the judge concluded (1) where section 30-3-5(1)(e) was not considered or included in the divorce proceedings, it did not apply, and (2) the Policy did not contain “express terms” that would except it from revocation under section 75-2-804(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 75-2-804(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy is revoked upon divorce; (2) section 30-3-5(1)(e) does not apply in this instance, and, rather, section 75-2-804 governs; (3) a life insurance policy must contain “express terms” referring to divorce in order for the beneficiary designation of a former spouse to survive revocation by section 75-2-804(2); and (4) the Policy did not contain “express terms” that would except it from revocation under section 75-2-804(2). View "Snyder v. Hertzske" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against Samsung, alleging that it made misrepresentations as to the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone. The district court denied Samsung's motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision contained in a warranty brochure included in the Galaxy S4 box. Determining that its analysis is governed by California contract, rather than warranty, law, the court concluded plaintiff did not assent to any agreement in the brochure, nor did he sign or otherwise act in a manner that showed he accepted the arbitration agreement. The court concluded that Samsung failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exception to the general California rule that an offeree’s silence does not constitute consent. Therefore, in the absence of an applicable exception, California’s general rule for contract formation applies. The court also concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, Samsung's inclusion of a brochure in the Galaxy S4 box, and plaintiff's failure to opt out, does not make the arbitration provision enforceable against plaintiff. Finally, the court concluded that Samsung's argument that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims by signing the Customer Agreement with Verizon Wireless is meritless. The court explained that Samsung is not a signatory to the Customer Agreement between Verizon Wireless and its customer. Furthermore, Samsung is not a third-party beneficiary to the Customer Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications" on Justia Law

Before 2013, the surviving spouse of a member of Chattanooga’s Fire and Police Pension Fund could receive benefits after the member died without incurring a proportional reduction in the member’s lifetime benefits. In 2012, the city removed this “default death benefit” for members who were not eligible to retire as of January 1, 2013. Dodd was not eligible to retire on that date and opted for a five-percent reduction in current, lifetime benefits so that his wife could receive an additional benefit upon his death. Dodd sued, asserting claims under the federal Contract Clause, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause, and Tennessee’s Law of the Land Clause. Dodd also argued that the 2012 amendment was not validly enacted under local law. The district court granted the city summary judgment on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Because Dodd does not have a contract or property right to the default death benefit, his constitutional claims fail. Although Dodd’s interest in some future benefits vested after 10 years of service, but Dodd did not become entitled to the default death benefit when he hit 10 years. Dodd’s challenge to the validity of the amendment’s enactment is also without merit. View "Dodd v. City of Chattanooga" on Justia Law

Dallas Roadster, the borrower, sought damages and TCB, the lender, sought attorneys' fees after receiving full payment on loans through the borrower’s bankruptcy proceedings. The parties argue that the other breached the loan agreements. The district court issued take-nothing judgments on the borrower’s and lender’s claims. The court concluded that the claims of Dallas Roadster CEO, Bahman Hafezamini, of tortious interference with an existing contract and with prospective business relations, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and malicious criminal prosecution, fail on the merits. The court need not reach the question of whether Hafezamini's release is valid in light of Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority. In regard to Dallas Roadster's appeal, the court concluded that the district court did not err in entering a take-nothing judgment on Dallas Roadster’s breach of contract claim where the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dallas Roadster committed multiple material breaches. In regard to TCB's appeal, the court concluded that Zachry does not apply, under these circumstances, to the loan provisions in this case, and TCB can recover its attorneys’ fees according to the terms of the loan agreements. The court also concluded that the district court erred by denying TCB any recovery of its attorneys' fees by using its inherent power to sanction TCB because the district court failed to provide TCB with adequate due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Texas Capital Bank N.A. v. Dallas Roadster, Ltd." on Justia Law

Schnucks, a grocery store chain, filed suit against First Data, a credit card processor, and Citicorp, the acquiring bank for its credit transactions. Schnucks brought declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims, alleging that defendants withheld more money from Schnucks following a data breach at Schnucks than their contract allowed. Defendants counterclaimed. The district court denied defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Schnucks's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Determining that it has jurisdiction, the court applied Missouri law and concluded that the assessments are not carved out from Schnucks’s limitation of liability as “third party fees.” Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the assessments for issuing banks’ losses do not constitute “fines or penalties.” The underlying business arrangement, which represents defendants’ choice to vouch for Schnucks’s compliance with data-security standards, is not rendered commercially unreasonable merely because the limitation on Schnucks’s liability is broader than defendants now wish it to be. The court held that the district court did not misapply the standard for judgment on the pleadings in concluding that defendants had not raised the issue of the separate $3,000,000 limitation of liability. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration or leave to amend, which essentially restated their assertions of error regarding judgment on the pleadings, and defendants failed to show good cause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. First Data Merchant Services Corp." on Justia Law

American Family Insurance Company (American Family) issued automobile insurance policies to policyholders that were later injured in automobile accidents. The policy contained an anti-assignment clause, but, in order to obtain medical treatment, the policyholders assigned their interests in basic economic loss benefits to their medical provider, Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. (Stand Up). Stand Up filed suit against the policyholders, their attorneys, and American Family for failing to make payment directly to Stand Up in accordance with the assignments. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the anti-assignment clause was unenforceable, and therefore, the assignments to Stand Up were valid. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the anti-assignment clause was valid and precluded the assignments the policyholders made to Stand Up. View "Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Riverwalk at Arrowhead Country Club and Magnolia North Horizontal Property Regime developments were constructed between 1997 and 2000. After construction was complete and the units were sold, the purchasers became aware of significant construction problems, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water-intrusion problems. In 2003, the purchasers filed suit to recover damages for necessary repairs to their homes. Lawsuits were filed by the respective property owners' associations (POAs), which sought actual and punitive damages for the extensive construction defects under theories of negligent construction, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of warranty. As to the Riverwalk development, individual homeowners also filed a class action to recover damages for the loss of use of their property during the repair period. The defendants in the underlying suits were the related corporate entities that developed and constructed the condominium complexes: Heritage Communities, Inc. (the parent development company), Heritage Magnolia North, Inc. and Heritage Riverwalk, Inc. (the project-specific subsidiary companies for each separate development), and Buildstar Corporation (the general contracting subsidiary that oversaw construction of all Heritage development projects), referred to collectively as "Heritage." The issues presented to the Supreme Court by these cases came from cross-appeals of declaratory judgment actions to determine coverage under Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policies issued by Harleysville Group Insurance. The cases arose from separate actions, but were addressed in a single opinion because they involved virtually identical issues regarding insurance coverage for damages. The Special Referee found coverage under the policies was triggered and calculated Harleysville's pro rata portion of the progressive damages based on its time on the risk. After review of the arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Special Referee in the Magnolia North matter, and affirmed as modified in the Riverwalk matter. View "Harleysville Group Ins. v. Heritage Communities, Inc." on Justia Law