Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Respondent High Mark Development, LLC owned a commercial building located in the City of Ammon. In 2006, it had leased a portion of the building to The Children's Center, Inc., for a period of ten years. In 2007, High Mark listed the real property for sale through its realtor. Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas O'Shea, a resident of California, learned of the property through a realtor friend in Boise. Appellant and his wife were trustees of the "Thomas and Anne O'Shea Trust u/d/t Dated November 2, 1998," which they had formed to protect their assets and provide for their children. They decided to purchase the real property. The Trust entered into a real estate contract agreeing to purchase the property from Defendant High Mark for $3.7 million. The sale closed late 2007. The Children's Center made no payments to Plaintiffs after they acquired the property. Shortly thereafter, the Children's Center vacated the property, and went out of business. Plaintiffs filed suit against High Mark and two of its principals, Gordon, Benjamin and Jared Arave arguing Defendants had induced them to acquire the property by providing false information that the Children's Center was current in its payments of rent and/or concealing or failing to disclose that the Center had failed to pay all rent due under the lease. Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract and fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure against all of the Defendants, but the issues were narrowed after cross motions for summary judgment. The case was tried to a jury on the issues of: High Mark's breach of contract; High Mark's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; Gordon Arave's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; and Benjamin Arave's alleged fraud by nondisclosure. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all of those Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied. The Plaintiffs then timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury could reasonably have determined that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were damaged by the breach and that they failed to prove that the breach of contract caused any damages. In addition, the jury could have found that the breach did not cause any damages because the Plaintiffs did not have the right to terminate the contract for the misrepresentation in an estoppel certificate. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the breach of contract claim.

This case concerned the applicability of a standard "no-action clause" in a trust indenture governing a company's notes. The clause at issue stated that a noteholder could not "pursue any remedy with respect to this Indenture or the Securities" unless the noteholder fell within one of two exceptions. At issue was whether noteholders who did not fall within a stated exception to the clause could nonetheless bring fraudulent transfer claims against the issuer of the securities and its directors and officers. Although the district court found the no-action clause inapplicable to the claims, the court disagreed and held that the language of the no-action clause controlled, barring noteholders from bringing suit.

This case involved a challenge to certain issuances of preferred units and convertible debt by a start-up medical products company. The founder, former CEO, and current common member of the company challenged the issuances, claiming they were self-interested transactions designed to benefit the company's directors and venture capital sponsors by unfairly diluting its common members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court found that plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that defendants' actions in approving the challenged issuances were grossly negligent or reckless. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's duty of care claims. As for the duty of loyalty claims, the court found that defendants failed to establish that the transactions were not self-interested or that they warranted protection under the safe harbor provisions of the company's operating agreement. Therefore, the court denied summary judgment on these claims. Finally, because the court found the operating agreement ambiguous on the issue of whether defendants were permitted to authorize additional common units or new series of units without approval by a majority of the common members, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim under Count VI.

This was a class action brought on behalf of the common unit holders of a publicly-traded Delaware limited partnership. In March 2011, the partnership agreed to be acquired by an unaffiliated third party at a premium to its common units' trading price. The merger agreement, which governed the transaction, also provided for a separate payment to the general partner to acquire certain partnership interests it held exclusively. The court concluded that defendants' approval of the merger agreement could not constitute a breach of any contractual or fiduciary duty, regardless of whether the conflict committee's approval was effective. The court also found that the disclosures authorized by defendants were not materially misleading. Therefore, plaintiffs could not succeed on their claims under any reasonable conceivable set of circumstances and defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Summit Group Properties, LLC (Summit) sued Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy Associates (OSPTA) and its partners for breach of lease and damages. OSPTA filed a counterclaim in which it alleged fraud in the inducement and damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Summit against OSPTA in the amount of $187,000. The jury found for Summit on OSPTA's counterclaim. OSPTA appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting a jury instruction offered by Summit because it misstated the law by instructing the jury that a limited liability company could not be liable for any fraudulent activity unless the fraud was approved by the members of the LLC. The Supreme Court agreed with OSPTA that the instruction was misleading because it was not a complete statement of the law and held that the trial court erred in giving the instruction. Remanded.

This case arose out of a dispute between two attorneys, John Cattano and Carolina Bragg, the only shareholders of Cattano Law Firm. Bragg filed an amended complaint including claims for a writ of mandamus for the copying and inspection of corporate records, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract, and judicial dissolution. A jury returned a verdict finding (1) Bragg owned 27.35 percent of the firm; (2) in Bragg's favor on her claim of derivative conversion, awarding the firm damages; and (3) in favor of Bragg on the breach of contract and judicial dissolution claims, awarding Bragg damages individually. The circuit court then awarded what it determined to be reasonable fees to Bragg. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that there was no error in the judgment of the circuit court.

Appellants, three licensed clinic psychologists, were former partners of Great Falls Clinic, LLP, a general limited liability partnership comprised of medical professionals. The Clinic partners, including Appellants, signed a partnership agreement stating that a partner who separates from the partnership in compliance with the agreement's terms will receive a partnership interest subject to reduction for competing after withdrawal or retirement. Appellants subsequently separated from the Clinic and filed a declaratory judgment action when the Clinic refused to pay them their full partnership interest payments. At issue was whether the agreement's restriction, which applied to those engaged in the "practice of medicine," included partners who practiced psychology after separating from the Clinic. The district court granted summary judgment for the Clinic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) holding that the Appellants engage in the "practice of medicine" as used in the partnership agreement; and (2) concluding that the parties' intention regarding the term "practice of medicine" in the language of the agreement was to include the psychologists.

The Supreme Court reviewed a district court order that upheld a county court's decision that a six-year stattue of limitations did not bar Respondent Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc.'s claim against Pettiioner Daniel Hassler. Petitioner financed the purchase of a vehicle by entering into a security agreement with Account Broker's predecessor-in-interest in which the vehicle served as collateral. Petitioner defaulted on the loan, and the predecessor repossessed the vehicle and later sold it at auction. The precedessor applied the proceeds of the auction to the balance of the loan. The proceeds were insufficient to cover the balance; thus Petitioner was still held responsible for the deficiency. The debt was eventually transferred to Account Brokers who sued Petitioner to recover the deficiency less than six years after the vehicle was sold. The county and district courts ruled in favor of Account Brokers, determining that the statute of limitations did not bar Account Brokers' claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the controlling issue was not the date that the debt was made liquidated or determinable but the date the debt accrued. "[U]nder Colorado law and the express terms of the parties' agreement, the present debt became due when it was accelerated following [the predecessor's] repossession of the vehicle and demand for full payment on the debt, which occurred more than six years before the initiation of the present suit. Accordingly, the action [was] barred by the statute of limitations."

In 1998 Ryerson sold subsidiaries to EMC for $29 million. The following year EMC sought rescission, claiming that Ryerson concealed that a subsidiary’s largest customer had declared that unless it slashed prices, the customer would stop buying from the subsidiary. Three years later, the parties settled, with Ryerson making a $8.5 million "price adjustment." Federal refused to indemnify Ryerson under an “Executive Protection Policy.” The policy covers loss for which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay on account of any claim for a wrongful act [defined to include a "misleading statement" or "omission"] allegedly committed by the insured. Federal denied that "loss: includes restitution paid by an insured, as distinct from damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Federal, stating that reimbursement of disgorgement of the profits of fraud would “encourage fraud.” Having to surrender those profits was not a loss within the meaning of the policy. The court also rejected an argument that Federal's change of position on why it denied the claim violated the doctrine of "mend the hold." In Illinois that doctrine does not forbid the defendant to add a defense after being sued.

Appellants David and Barbara Moore defaulted on the Note to their mortgage in 2008. U.S. Bank, National Association, commenced foreclosure proceedings later that year, not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee on behalf of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6 (Appellee). According to the verified petition, the Appellee was "the present holder of said Note and Mortgage having received due assignment through mesne assignments of record or conveyance via mortgaging servicing transfer." The original petition did not attach a copy of the note in question sued upon. Appellants answered, pro se in 2009, disputing all allegations and requesting that the Appellee "submit additional documentation to prove [its] claims including the representation that they were the "present holder of said Note." Appellee subsequently filed an amended petition and a second amended petition to add additional defendants. Neither of these amendments included a copy of the note. Appellee submitted its Motion for Summary Judgment to the court, again representing that it was the holder of the Note. Documentation attached to the Motion attempted to support this representation: including the Mortgage, the Note, an Assignment of Mortgage, and an Affidavit in Support of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the first time, Appellee submitted the Note and Mortgage to the trial court. The note was indorsed in blank and contained no date for the indorsement. Appellants did not respond to Appellee's Motion, and the trial court entered a default judgment against them. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Appellee. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record establishing that Appellee had standing to commence its foreclosure action: “[t]he trial court's granting of a default judgment in favor of Appellee could not have been rationally based upon the evidence or Oklahoma law.” The Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.