Pro se Defendant Mary Y. Seguin challenged a Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Jessup & Conroy, P.C. (the law firm), on her counterclaim in this collection action. In late 2001, Seguin retained the law firm to represent her in two Rhode Island Family Court matters, a divorce action involving her former husband, Marc Seguin, and a paternity action involving her former boss at a prior place of employment. The law firm entered its appearance in both cases. Soon thereafter, Defendant received a large cash settlement from her former employer. Mr. Seguin successfully entreated a Family Court justice to impound the settlement as a marital asset and to place the funds in an escrow account with the children's guardian ad litem. Over the next year, litigation ensued in both Family Court matters; ultimately, the law firm withdrew as counsel for Defendant in the two cases, citing Defendant's repeated requests that the law firm file baseless motions, as well as her refusal to pay over $30,000 in legal fees for services rendered. Defendant and her former husband signed an addendum to their property-settlement agreement, which stipulated that any funds held in escrow were to be deposited in equal shares into irrevocable trusts established for the benefit of the minor daughter fathered by Mr. Seguin. That August, both Seguin and Mr. Seguin requested, via correspondence to the law firm, that the law firm release all escrowed funds to them personally. However, the law firm declined to honor that request based on the addendum's provision that the escrow funds be deposited into irrevocable trusts. After a repeated request from Defendant and her former husband coupled with the imposition of a Family Court sanction upon Defendant in the paternity action, the law firm filed a motion for instructions in the divorce action, seeking guidance from the Family Court in regard to distribution of the escrow funds at issue. A Family Court justice ordered the law firm to provide an accounting of the funds and to deposit them into irrevocable trusts as set forth in the addendum. The law firm complied by providing an accounting of the funds and deposited the money into two trust accounts. Subsequently, the law firm filed a complaint against Defendant seeking to recover unpaid legal fees. In response, Defendant filed an answer, as well as a counterclaim, setting forth fifteen counts against the law firm, including: (1) false advertising; (2) deceptive trade practices; (3) fraud; (4) wire fraud; (5) mail fraud; (6) RICO violations; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of fiduciary duty by trustee; (9) breach of trust; (10) grand theft; (11) tampering with/altering legal records; (12) legal malpractice; (13) negligence; (14) breach of contract; and (15) breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After hearing from both parties, the motion justice concluded that Defendant had failed to meet her burden in opposing Plaintiff's motion. Defendant appealed. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding Defendant indeed failed to meet her burden to defeat Plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiffs Joseph and Josephine Iozzi owned a home located in Cranston. On October 15, 2005, excessive rainfall overwhelmed the sewer system servicing the Iozzis's home, causing water and sewage to back up and enter their basement, resulting in extensive damage to their home and personal property. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory relief and compensatory damages from Triton Ocean State, LLC (Triton); U.S. Filter Operating Services, Inc. (Veolia); and Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless). The complaint alleged that Triton and Veolia were jointly and severally liable for negligently "operating, maintaining and repairing the sewer disposal system" in the city. As to Peerless, the complaint alleged that it was liable for breach of contract for rejecting plaintiffs' claim for damages under their homeowner's insurance policy. Peerless moved for summary judgment arguing that the language in the homeowner's policy was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for the claims Plaintiffs made. Triton and Veolia filed a joint motion for summary judgment arguing that neither of them had a contractual or common-law responsibility to Plaintiffs for the damage to their property because a lease service agreement with the City of Cranston relieved them of responsibility for the damage and because the flooding that caused Plaintiffs' damages was caused by an "Act of God." Agreeing with the superior court's reasoning for granting defendants' motions for summary judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' case.

The facts of this case were "clear and undisputed; in point of fact, they are a textbook example of a mechanic's-lien dispute." Plaintiff, GSM Industrial, Inc., was a subcontractor that entered into an agreement with AirPol, Inc., a general contractor, to install an air-pollution-control mechanism on property owned by Defendant Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc. When AirPol failed to pay GSM the balance of its fee, GSM filed a complaint to enforce a mechanic's lien against Grinnell. The particular issue before the Supreme Court was whether a notarial acknowledgment in a subcontractor's notice of intention satisfied the statutory requirement that such a statement be "under oath." A justice of the Superior Court ruled that a Pennsylvania notary public's "acknowledgement" was insufficient to satisfy the oath requirement, and, as a result, the notice was fatally defective. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant-Appellant James Brown owned interests in several businesses. In late 2004, he acquired and redesigned two convenience stores on opposite sides of Exit 2 on Interstate 29 in North Sioux City, South Dakota. Plaintiff-Appellee Stern Oil, a fuel distributor for Exxon Mobil Corporation, contacted Brown while he was remodeling the properties. Although Brown was negotiating with another fuel distributor, he ultimately elected to do business with Stern Oil. When Brown notified Stern Oil that he would no longer purchase its fuel, Stern Oil initiated this breach of contract action. Brown filed a counterclaim, alleging fraudulent inducement. Stern Oil argued that Brown contracted to purchase a minimum amount of fuel for a ten-year period. The circuit court granted Stern Oil's motion for summary judgment on both the breach of contract claim and on Brown's counterclaim, but the issue of damages proceeded to trial. After trial, the circuit court awarded Stern Oil eight years of lost profits. Brown appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. Both Brown's fraudulent inducement counterclaim and Stern Oil's breach of contract claim involved disputed material facts. Therefore, the Court concluded the circuit court erred in granting Stern Oil summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

This case arose from a fatal motorcycle accident in which Steven Wadzinski was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. Steven's wife, Michelle, sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under an umbrella insurance policy that Steven's company carried on him at the time of his death. At issue was the meaning of an endorsement to the executive umbrella policy, and whether that endorsement caused contextual ambiguity such that a reasonable insured would expect $2,000,000 of UM coverage under the policy. The circuit court held that the executive umbrella policy was clearly intended to provide only third-party liability coverage and granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the executive umbrella policy was contextually ambiguous, and therefore, the policy should be construed in favor of the insured to afford coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the policy at issue unambiguously did not afford first-party UM coverage, and therefore, the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners was proper.

Appellees entered into performance and stock agreements with their employer, appellant ONEOK, Inc. The agreements required Appellees to continue their employment for three years (performance period) in order to receive the full number of shares, but allowed pro rata payments if Appellees' employment terminated under certain conditions. After Appellees left ONEOK's employment before the earliest performance period ended, ONEOK denied Appellees' claims for pro rata payments under the agreements. Appellees sued ONEOK for breach of contract. The district court found for Appellees and awarded Appellees money damages equal to each of their pro rata shares under the agreements, and denied their request for attorney fees. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of attorney fees, holding that the district court erred in determining Appellees were not entitled to attorney fees under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (NWPCA). Remanded for a determination of the amount of the attorney fees award under the NWPCA.

Roger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The district court entered summary judgment for Unicity, holding that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and lacked standing to sue for its enforcement. Unicity then filed a motion for attorney fees under Utah's reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code 78B-5-826. The district court denied the motion on the ground that section 826 was inapplicable given that Hooban was not a party to the underlying contract. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Bilanzich v. Lonetti to dictate a fee award in litigation that is based on a written contract where the contract allows at least one party to the litigation to recover fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 826 applied in this case; and (2) the statute thus authorized the court to award fees to Unicity.

This was an appeal from the circuit court's entry of summary judgment quieting title to certain property in favor of Edward and Nancy Bosch. Harpagon MO, LLC asserted that the circuit court should have entered summary judgment in its favor because it complied with the requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. 140.405 by providing the Bosches with timely and sufficient notice of their right to redemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a purchaser is authorized to acquire a deed to property purchased at a tax sale one year after the sale; (2) therefore, a purchaser must notify the owner of that property of the owner's right to redeem at least ninety days prior to one year after the tax sale; (3) if the purchaser does not provide timely or sufficient notice, but still acquires the deed by presenting the certificate of purchase to the collector, then the owner can file a petition to set aside the tax sale asserting the purchaser's failure to comply with section 140.405; and (4) the circuit court did not err in finding that the notices provided to the Bosches were not timely and thus awarding the Bosches quiet title to the property.

Defendant-Appellant Robert Shipley appealed a district court order which granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee BNSF Railway Company. BNSF leased commercial property in Miles City, Montana, to Shipley. The lease provided that either party could terminate the lease upon 30 days written notice. Shipley failed to pay rent to BNSF for a number of years. This failure by Shipley resulted in overdue rent payments of $17,700. BNSF notified Shipley on January 7, 2011, that the Lease Agreement would be cancelled and terminated in 30 days, effective on February 10, 2011. The Lease Agreement also required that Shipley remove all improvements and personal property from the leased premises within the 30 days of the lease termination. Shipley failed to remove the items. BNSF provided Shipley with a 60 day extension to remove the items. Shipley again refused to remove the items. Shipley’s refusal prompted BNSF to file a complaint to quiet title to the improvements and personal property, a declaratory judgment that BNSF had terminated the lease validly, trespass, unlawful detainer, and claim for reasonable rent. Shipley acknowledged that he owed $17,700 in rent. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment.

Appellants James J. and Linda L. Clark appealed a district court order that approved the filing of an amended certificate of survey, approved a settled agreement, and required each party to pay one-half of the fees and costs relative to a surveyor agreed upon by the parties. Appellees Bill and Katy Martin purchased the Fishtail General Store from Clarks in May 2000. The sewer system for the Fishtail General Store failed in July 2005. Keith Brown, a licensed Professional Engineer, designed a replacement septic wastewater disposal sewer system. The Stillwater County Health Department issued a replacement sewer system permit, and the Martins installed the new sewer system north of the Fishtail General Store on "Tract 2-A." A number of unresolved issues remained between Clarks and Martins. Clarks and Martins ultimately jointly petitioned to relocate the boundary lines between Tract 2-A and property owned by Clarks. The District Court approved the boundary line relocation. This relocation reduced the size of Tract 2-A. The new sewer system failed again in 2009. Martins requested that Clarks allow Martins to use land located outside the adjusted boundary line to install the two additional laterals. Clarks refused. Martins filed a motion pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for relief from the district court’s order of June 7, 2006 that had approved the boundary line relocation. The parties advised the District Court at the conclusion of a pre-trial conference that they had reached a settlement. The court ordered the parties to hire Tom Kelly, a licensed surveyor, to prepare a certificate of survey that would implement the Septic System Easement Agreement. Martins then filed a motion asking the court to approve a Corrected Tract 2-A Amended Certificate of Survey prepared by Kelly. Clarks argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the District Court incorrectly determined that the Corrected Tract 2-A'a Amended COS did not change the boundaries between the Clarks’ and Martins’ tracts. Clarks further contended that the District Court improperly concluded that Martins’ proposed septic system agreement accurately reflected the agreement of the parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the district court record to support the court's ultimate decision in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.