Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Falco sold insurance for Farmers, under a 1990 Agent Agreement, which provided that Falco would be paid Contract Value upon termination of the Agreement. As a Farmers agent, Falco was entitled to borrow money from the Credit Union. In 2006, Falco obtained a $28,578.00 business loan and assigned his interest in his Agreement receivables—including Contract Value—as security. The loan document gave the Credit Union authority to demand payments that Farmers owed Falco; it could tender Falco’s resignation to levy on Falco’s Contract Value. Falco failed to make payments and filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, listing the loan on his schedules. Falco received a discharge in February 2011, covering his liability under his Credit Union loan. In April 2011, the Credit Union notified Farmers that Falco had defaulted and exercised the power of attorney to terminate his Agent Agreement. Farmers notified Falco that the resignation had been accepted, calculated Contract Value as $104,323.30, paid the Credit Union $29,180.92, and paid the balance to Falco. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Credit Union’s secured interest survived bankruptcy; it did not tortuously interfere with Falco’s Agreement because it had a legal right to terminate the Agreement; and Falco failed to show an underlying wrongful act or intentional tort as required under civil conspiracy. View "Falco v. Farmers Ins. Grp." on Justia Law

Lariat and Tenant entered into a 10-year lease for operation of a restaurant. Debtor personally guaranteed Tenant's performance. Tenant was evicted in 2010 and obtained a judgment of $2,224,237.00, plus interest and attorney fees. In 2011, Lariat filed an involuntary chapter 7 petition against Debtor, which was dismissed by agreement. The same creditors filed suit against Debtor's wife. After the involuntary petition was dismissed, they added Debtor as a codefendant. The court held Debtor and his wife liable for fraudulent transfers ($795,098.00) and awarded interest and costs. In 2013, Debtor sued Lariat; the court dismissed, based on collateral estoppel. Appeal is pending. In 2014 Tenant filed a chapter 11 petition and an adversary proceeding against Lariat. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding. On the Trustee's motion, Tenant’s chapter 11 case was dismissed. Debtor filed his own chapter 11 petition. Lariat filed a proof of claim for $1,734,539.00. Debtor objected on grounds that the amount sought based on Debtor's personal guaranty under the lease exceeded the amount allowable under 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(6) and the amount sought based on fraudulent transfers was duplicative of, and subject to the same limitation as, sought based on thatl guaranty. Lariat filed an amended proof of claim for $1,610,787.00. The court capped Lariat's claim at $445,272.93. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel remanded for recalculation of damages under the lease and of fees and expenses, but agreed that damages for fraudulent transfers were duplicative. View "Lariat Co., Inc. v. Wigley" on Justia Law

Chivalry contracted with Rehtmeyer to develop and manufacture a board game. Chivalry paid Rehtmeyer over $128,000, but the relationship deteriorated. Rehtmeyer never produced the game. Chivalry sued for breach of contract and won a judgment of $168,331.59, plus $621.25 in costs in Illinois state court. Rehtmeyer never paid. Chivalry issued a citation to discover assets. At the citation examination, Rehtmeyer testified that she had no ownership interest in any real estate; securities, stocks, bonds or similar assets; office or electronic equipment; nor a personal checking or savings account. Because Rehtmeryer had not produced required documents, Chivalry continued the citation and filed a motion to compel production, which was granted. She did not comply. The state court twice more ordered her to produce all the documents required by the citation. Months later, Chivalry sought a rule to show cause. The day before the scheduled hearing, Rehtmeyer filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Chivalry appeared to object to the discharge of the debt owed to it, claiming that Rehtmeyer had concealed her assets and income during the citation proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied Chivalry’s objection. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that Rehtmeyer concealed assets with the requisite intent. View "Jacobs v. Marcus-Rehtmeyer" on Justia Law

DVI Receivables XIV, LLC; DVI Receivables XVI, LLC; DVI Receivables XVII, LLC; DVI Receivables XVIII, LLC; DVI Receivables XIX, LLC; DVI Funding, LLC (collectively, the "DVI Entities"); Lyon Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Bank Portfolio Services ("Lyon"); and U.S. Bank, N.A. ("USB") (collectively, "Appellants") appealed a district court decision to affirm a bankruptcy court's final order awarding appellee Maury Rosenberg attorney's fees and costs. The DVI Entities filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against appellee Rosenberg. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the petition, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs to appellee Rosenberg. The bankruptcy court granted Rosenberg's motion and dismissed the involuntary petition with prejudice. The bankruptcy court found, inter alia, that the DVI Entities were not eligible creditors of Rosenberg because his 2005 guaranty did not run to the DVI Entities. The DVI Entities therefore lacked standing as a matter of law to file an involuntary petition against Rosenberg. In his adversary complaint, Rosenberg asserted federal claims to recover attorney's fees, costs, and damages he incurred because of the filing of the involuntary petition, which the bankruptcy court had dismissed. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and following oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the following three categories of attorney's fees and costs: (1) fees to obtain the dismissal, (2) appellate fees, and (3) fees on fees. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the fourth category of fees and costs, those incurred to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages, as prematurely entered. The case was remanded back to the district court: (1) to deduct from the total award the limited amount of fees and costs that were incurred solely for the legal work done to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages; and (2) to reconsider that deducted fee and cost amount along with the motion to supplement. View "DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, et al. v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

Sterling Development Group Three, LLC, and Sterling Development Group Eight, LLC, appealed a judgment dismissing their action against James Carlson to collect on two personal guarantees, and an order awarding Carlson costs and disbursements. In 1983, Carlson founded PRACS Institute, Ltd., a medical research facility which began operating in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. In 1999, Sterling Development Group Three entered into a 15-year lease agreement with PRACS for a building located in East Grand Forks. Carlson signed the lease agreement as the president of PRACS. Carlson also signed a personal guaranty. When PRACS expanded in 2004, Sterling Development Group Eight built an expansion to the Sterling Three building, and PRACS entered into a lease agreement with Sterling Eight for a term running simultaneously with the Sterling Three lease. Carlson signed a similar personal guaranty for the Sterling Eight lease. In January 2006, Carlson sold PRACS to Contract Research Solutions, Inc., which the parties refer to as Cetero. The Sterling companies consented to this "change of control." Carlson's daily involvement in PRACS ceased at that point. Carlson received Cetero stock in the sale and became a member of Cetero's seven-member board of directors. In 2010, Cetero suspended its East Grand Forks operations, but continued to pay rent to the Sterling companies. In the spring of 2012, Cetero filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee eventually rejected the East Grand Forks Cetero leases with the Sterling companies and stopped paying rent. The Sterling companies then brought this action against Carlson to collect more than $600,000 for unpaid rent under his personal guarantees. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed the action. The court found Carlson was exonerated from liability under the personal guarantees because the original lease agreements had been altered in three respects by the Sterling companies and Cetero or PRACS without Carlson's knowledge or consent. The Sterling companies argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in finding the original lease agreements were contractually altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent, resulting in exoneration of his personal guaranty obligations. Because the district court's finding that the principal's contractual obligations were altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order. View "Sterling Development Group Three, LLC v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Under a 2007 “Purchase Agreement – Public Sale” Eagle agreed to pay $4,812,874.65 to purchase Louisville property owned by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Eagle paid a good faith deposit of $962,574.93 to “KY STATE TREASURER.” The Agreement was assigned by Eagle to Shelbyville Road Shoppes, the debtor. Two days before the expiration of an 18-month extension to close the transaction, the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition. The bankruptcy trustee unsuccessfully sought return of the good faith deposit from the Cabinet. The bankruptcy court found that neither the Agreement nor state law granted the debtor the right to have the deposit returned. The district court affirmed, finding: that the debtor had no right to possess or use the deposit prior to filing for relief, so the trustee had no right to request turnover under section 542; that the deposit was not held in escrow; that the transaction was not a contract for deed; and that the debtor did not retain an equitable right to the deposit as a vendee. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The debtor did not possess either a legal or an equitable property interest in the deposit at the time of the Chapter 7 petition. View "Lawrence v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

Debtors and Starion entered into loan transactions. The promissory notes and mortgages provided that the Debtors were liable for Starion’s attorney fees and costs of collections. The Debtors also executed personal guarantees. Defaults resulted in a 2012 Workout Agreement between Starion and the Debtors, who consented to entry of judgments against them to secure their personal guarantees. Based upon properly filed confessions of judgment, executed under the Agreement, a North Dakota state court entered judgments against Debtors for $2,078,034.26 and $1,000,000.00, plus interest. Debtors filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. The Debtors’ Second Amended Plan of Reorganization stated: Debtors agree to pay Starion’s allowable attorney’s fees and costs associated with both Debtors’ bankruptcy proceedings including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, consulting, appraisal, filing fees, late fees … as provided in the Plan. The Plan was confirmed. Later the Debtors refused to pay requested appraisal and engineering costs and attorneys’ fees. Starion requested that the bankruptcy court compel payment of $125,014.64 based upon the Plan and 11 U.S.C. 506(b). The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Debtors. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, noting that the obligation has appeared throughout the long documented history of the relationship. View "Starion Fin. v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Tommy Sundy petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss third-party claims asserted against him by accounting firm Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC ("FCT"). Adams Produce Company, Inc. ("APCI"), purchased Crestview Produce of Destin, Inc., from Sundy. As part of the transaction, APCI and Sundy executed a promissory note in the amount of $850,000, and Sundy became an employee of APCI. FCT alleges that, based on representations from APCI and Sundy, certain budget and bonus projections were set for APCI, but those goals were not met. Because of that failure, Sundy was not entitled to bonuses that had been paid to him throughout 2009. With the alleged help and direction of FCT, APCI recharacterized the bonuses as repayments of principal on the promissory note. The nonpayment of certain amounts to Sundy in the context of this action effectively increased APCI's income and decreased its indebtedness. APCI also allegedly entered into an oral, undocumented agreement with Sundy stipulating that it would make him whole in future years for the forfeited bonus payments. In 2009, APCI's shareholders decided to sell the company to API Holdings, LLC. API Holdings alleges that it discovered that, contrary to representations made by FCT in an audit report, APCI's financial statements were fraudulent, causing API Holdings to believe that APC was worth more than it actually was. API Holdings sued FCT asserting claims of negligent misrepresentation, auditing malpractice, fraud, and other claims of professional malfeasance. Among several other claims, API Holdings alleged that FCT had failed to uncover misrepresentations by Sundy and APCI and that FCT had acted fraudulently in confirming the recharacterization of Sundy's bonuses as payments on principal of the promissory note. A few months later, APC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. APC filed an adversarial complaint in FCT's bankruptcy case, alleging that FCT's audit work had painted a false financial picture of APC upon which APC had relied in continuing to operate its business even after reaching the point of insolvency. FCT filed a third-party complaint with the bankruptcy court against Sundy and others. FCT's complaint alleged various theories under Alabama law as bases for FCT to "recover over" against Sundy. Sundy subsequently moved to dismiss FCT's third-party complaint on the basis of 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, Alabama's abatement statute. The circuit court denied the motion, and Sundy then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the Supreme Court direct the circuit court to vacate its judgment denying his motion to dismiss and to order the circuit court to dismiss FCT's claims against Sundy asserted in its third-party complaint at circuit court. The Supreme Court concluded that FCT's third-party claims against Sundy were not barred by the abatement statute. The circuit court properly declined to dismiss those claims. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: API Holdings, LLC v. Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves statements made by plaintiff Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR) in a breach of contract case that were allegedly inconsistent with earlier statements by its sole owner, John Tagliapietra. VMR developed and owned certain intellectual property, including a software system to calculate the value of a total loss of an automobile for the purposes of the automobile insurance industry and certain “pre-existing software tools, utilities, concepts, techniques, text, research or development” used in the development of the software. When Mr. Tagliapietra filed for personal bankruptcy, he asserted that his shares in VMR were worth nothing. A few years later, as the bankruptcy was winding down, VMR sued Mitchell International, Inc., a company which held an exclusive license to VMR's technology. That case sought $4.5 million in damages for the alleged misappropriation of that technology. The question this case presented to the Tenth Circuit was whether the statements by VMR and Mr. Tagliapietra in the litigation against Mitchell were so clearly contrary to the statements made by Mr. Tagliapietra in his bankruptcy proceeding that VMR should have been judicially estopped from proceeding with its suit against Mitchell. After review, the Court concluded that neither VMR’s litigation claim for payments nor Mr. Tagliapietra’s deposition testimony in that lawsuit was clearly inconsistent with his valuation of 0.00 for his VMR stock at the time of his bankruptcy petition in 2005, the date when the initial bankruptcy representations were made. "If there were grounds for judicial estoppel, it would have to be based on a duty by Mr. Tagliapietra to amend his bankruptcy pleadings to report a possible increased value for his VMR stock at least as of the time that VMR filed its suit against Mitchell in 2009. However, our precedent is not clear on whether a debtor has a continuing duty to amend his bankruptcy schedules when the estate’s assets change in value. Given our reluctance to invoke judicial estoppel, and keeping in mind that judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense that its proponent must prove, we conclude that in this case Mitchell has not met its burden of showing any clearly inconsistent statements that would warrant that relief." View "Vehicle Market Research v. Mitchell International" on Justia Law

The issue this appeal presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on an agreement for the sale of a residential property and a subsequent lease and repurchase agreement, specifically whether the transactions collectively gave rise to an equitable mortgage, violated consumer protection statutes, or contravened its decision in "In re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law," (139 N.J. 323 (1995)). In 2007, defendant Barbara Felton faced foreclosure proceedings with respect to her unfinished, uninhabitable home and the land on which it was situated. Felton and plaintiff Tahir Zaman, a licensed real estate agent, entered into a written contract for the sale of the property. A week later, at a closing in which neither party was represented by counsel, Felton and Zaman entered into two separate agreements: a lease agreement under which Felton became the lessee of the property, and an agreement that gave her the option to repurchase the property from Zaman at a substantially higher price than the price for which she sold it. For more than a year, Felton remained on the property, paying no rent. She did not exercise her right to repurchase. Zaman filed suit, claiming that he was the purchaser in an enforceable land sale agreement, and that he therefore was entitled to exclusive possession of the property and to damages. Felton asserted numerous counterclaims, alleging fraud, slander of title, violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and violations of other federal and state consumer protection statutes. She claimed that the parties’ transactions collectively comprised an equitable mortgage and constituted a foreclosure scam, entitling her to relief under several theories. She further contended that the transactions were voidable by virtue of an alleged violation of "In re Opinion No. 26." A jury rendered a verdict in Zaman’s favor with respect to the question of whether Felton knowingly sold her property to him. The trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial and rejected Felton’s remaining claims, including her contention that the transactions gave rise to an equitable mortgage and her allegation premised upon In re Opinion No. 26. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Division’s determination. The Court affirmed the jury’s determination that Felton knowingly sold her property to Zaman. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial court and Appellate Division's decisions that Felton had no claim under the CFA, that this case did not implicate "In re Opinion No. 26," and that Felton’s remaining claims were properly dismissed. The Court reversed, however, the portion of the Appellate Division’s opinion that affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Felton’s claim that the parties’ agreements constituted a single transaction that gave rise to an equitable mortgage, adopting an eight-factor standard for the determination of an equitable mortgage set forth by the United States Bankruptcy Court in "O’Brien v. Cleveland," (423 B.R. 477 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010)). The case was remanded to the trial court for application of that standard to this case, and, in the event that the trial court concludes that an equitable mortgage was created by the parties, for the adjudication of two of Felton’s statutory claims based on alleged violations of consumer lending laws, as well as several other claims not adjudicated by the trial court. View "Zaman v. Felton" on Justia Law