Defendant, Suzynne D. Cumminngs and S.D. Cummings & Co., PC, appealed a Superior Court order awarding $44,403 to plaintiffs, Robert Audette and his company, H&S Construction Services, LLC (H&S), for breach of contract. Defendants provided various accounting and business services to Audette and his then-partner, Paul Fogarty, including helping them to start their construction business partnership, as well as preparing tax returns for both the business and Audette and Fogarty personally. In 2007, defendants helped Audette and Fogarty dissolve their partnership. One of the final acts defendants worked on for H&S was the placement of a mechanic's lien on a property on which H&S worked: the municipality halted construction on the project when H&S was approximately ninety-five percent complete. The lien placed on the property was for $44,403. Ultimately, plaintiffs’ 120-day statutory lien had not been timely secured or recorded, therefore it had lapsed. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants in November 2009 for failing to secure the lien. The trial court found for plaintiffs and awarded damages in the amount of $44,403. Finding no error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Audette & v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Superior Court dismissed the underlying complaint in this case based solely upon its determination that a 2011 Settlement Agreement barred the Plaintiffs’ claims as constituting an impermissible collateral attack on a 2009 Insurance Agreement. The Superior Court did not address the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ allegations supporting their claims. In this appeal, Plaintiffs contended that the Superior Court should not have dismissed their claims because the 2011 Settlement Agreement was reasonably susceptible to the Plaintiffs’ interpretation. Therefore, extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent was necessary to resolve any dispute over the 2011 Settlement Agreement’s terms. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the 2011 Settlement Agreement unambiguously precluded the Plaintiffs from asserting the claims that are at issue in this action. The intent of the parties in negotiating the 2011 Settlement Agreement was a factual question inappropriate for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. View "Nicholas, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al." on Justia Law

Menzies, an air cargo handling business, leased CenterPoint’s 185,280-square-foot warehouse near O’Hare Airport. Another tenant used the building to store airplane parts until 2006. Under the lease, Menzies is responsible for repairing the “floor,” while CenterPoint is responsible for repairing the “foundation.” CenterPoint constructed improvements costing $1.4 million, at Menzies’ request, including increasing the number of dock doors from two to 38 and installing 45,000‐pound dock levelers. When Menzies began moving its operations into the building in November 2007, the six‐inch concrete slab did not exhibit any visible damage. By January 2009, the slab had begun to deteriorate. The damage was not consistent with typical wear and tear. The slab could not support Menzies’ equipment. CenterPoint paid $92,000 for repairs, then stopped doing so and did not submit an insurance claim. The slab is so damaged that it must be replaced, at an estimated cost of $966,000 to $1.23 million. Menzies sued CenterPoint for breach and CenterPoint counterclaimed. The district court held that neither party was entitled to recover because the slab had a “dual nature as both floor and foundation,” but “the damage at issue was related to the slab’s function as a floor.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Aeroground, Inc. v. CenterPoint Props. Trust" on Justia Law

Legacy Resources, Inc. brought several claims against Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. The district court dismissed Legacy's breach of contract and trade secret claims on summary judgment, determining (1) Legacy violated the securities laws by acting as an unlicensed broker in recruiting investors on behalf of Liberty; and (2) Legacy's securities violations rendered its contract unenforceable under Utah Code 61-1-22(8). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the undisputed facts sustained the conclusion that Legacy acted as an unlicensed broker, which violation foreclosed the enforcement of one of its contracts; but (2) another of Legacy's contracts was not implicated by the securities violation, and thus the district court erred by granting summary judgment on Legacy's claim under that contract, along with its trade secret claim. View "Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted with a shipper agent to move his household goods and personal property from Nebraska to Florida, but the movers who took possession of Plaintiff's property demanded additional payment before the property was delivered, and the property was never delivered to Florida or returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought coverage under his homeowner's policy for loss of personal property due to theft. Insurer denied coverage, claiming that a theft had not occurred. Plaintiff sued Insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in denying the insurance claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding that Plaintiff lost his property in a contractual dispute and that there was no showing of criminal intent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a theft occurred in this case. Remanded. View "Peterson v. Homesite Indem. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was assigned the serving rights to Plaintiff's mortgage on a piece of property. Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming that Defendant attempted to collect more than was due on the loan. The parties settled. Plaintiff then filed this action against Defendant, alleging breach of the settlement agreement, defamation, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. An order of default was later entered against Defendant. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the default judgments be set aside because Plaintiff's claims were legally deficient. The trial court denied the motion. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a defaulting party who does not file a motion to vacate the order of default after a default judgment has been entered cannot file a Maryland Rule 2-534 motion to alter or amend a judgment to contest liability, and the defaulting party cannot appeal that judgment in order to contest liability. View "Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nefflen" on Justia Law

Lender loaned Borrowers $52,000 pursuant to a loan agreement (agreement) and promissory note ( note). After Borrowers stopped making payments on the loan, Lender filed a petition to collect the total principal due on the agreement and note. The trial judge determined (1) Lender did not meet its burden to prove a breach of contract on the agreement and note because it did not show evidence of the terms of the agreement and repayment schedule, and (2) even if there was an enforceable contract, Lender failed to prove damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record established as a matter of law that Lender proved the existence of a contract based upon the agreement and note; and (2) the district court applied the wrong burden of proof to determine a breach and the amount of damages owed, if any, on the agreement and note. Remanded. View "Iowa Mortgage Ctr., LLC v. Baccam" on Justia Law

Eugene and Charlene Guthmiller appealed a district court judgment finding an option agreement should have been honored, allowing Guthmiller Farms, LLP and Jeremy Guthmiller to each purchase by contract for deed an undivided one-half interest in specified lands. The Guthmillers argued on appeal: (1) that Guthmiller Farms did not have standing to pursue the action; (2) that consideration was invalid for the option contract; (3) that exercise of the option constituted a counteroffer; and (4) that the district court erred in considering evidence not disclosed prior to the hearing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Guthmiller Farms v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

Charles Gower petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Turquoise Properties Gulf, Inc., Caribe Realty, Inc., Larry Wireman, and Judy Ramsey Wireman(collectively, "Turquoise"). The underlying dispute arose from Gower's preconstruction agreement to purchase a condominium unit in a complex developed by Turquoise. The arbitrator's decision was based in large part on Turqoise's successfully raising a statute-of-limitations defense to Gower's claims. The Supreme Court found that Turquoise expressly argued, and then abandoned, one specific statute-of-limitations defense and then it never again urged the arbitrator to apply a statute of limitations to the various claims actually brought by the claimants. Through its arguments, Turquoise distilled the issues and arguments submitted to the arbitrator for consideration. Gower argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Turquoise "affirmatively chose to forgo any statute of limitations defense to the [c]laimants' ... claims and therefore did not submit [the] same to the Arbitrator for decision." Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that because the issue of the applicability of a statute of limitations was not submitted to the arbitrator for decision, the arbitrator exceeded his powers in applying a statute of limitations to Gower's claims. The Court reversed the judgment entered on the arbitrator's award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Gower v. Turquoise Properties Gulf, Inc., et al. " on Justia Law

Immunosciences developed and sold medical tests and testing materials. In 2007, NeuroSciences wanted to expand its offerings. Immunosciences and NeuroScience decided to collaborate, but the relationship fell apart within two years. Immunosciences sued. In the first trial, a jury rejected a claim that NeuroScience did not pay what it had contracted to pay for medical testing materials, but the district judge ordered a new trial, concluding that the verdict was undermined by flawed special verdict questions. The jury in the second trial found for Immunosciences but awarded much less money than it was seeking. NeuroScience appealed, claiming that the court’s grant of a new trial was an abuse of discretion. Immunosciences argued that the court abused its discretion by allowing NeuroScience to argue in the new trial that the parties had orally modified their written contract and that NeuroScience breached a separate confidentiality agreement by continuing to use Immunosciences’ testing methods after the parties ended their business relationship. The jury in the first trial had awarded nearly $1.2 million on that claim, but the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for NeuroScience, explaining that Immunosciences had relied on an impermissible damages theory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Vojdani v. Pharmasan Labs, Inc." on Justia Law