Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This matter involved the interpretation of a limited liability company operating agreement. Petitioner (Showell) was a member of an accounting firm (Hoyt) and respondents (Pusey and Hatter) were the remaining members of the LLC at the time. In early 2007, Showell "retired" from Hoyt. Showell subsequently asked the court to construe the provisions of the Hoyt Operating Agreement to determine what value, if any, Showell was due for his interest in Hoyt as a consequence of his departure from the company. The court held that Showell was entitled to receive his share of the liquidation value of Hoyt as of the date of his "retirement" from the company.

This case concerned the bankruptcy estate of Qualia Clinical Service, Inc. The estate's Chapter 7 Trustee sought to avoid as a preferential transfer a security interest recorded by one of Qualia's creditors shortly before the bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held the security interest voidable. The court held that the bankruptcy court and the BAP properly applied 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(5)(A) to conclude that the preferential transfer in this case, though it concerned an interest in accounts receivable, improved Inova Capital Funding, LLC's position as against Qualia's other creditors and so was not exempt from avoidance under that subsection. The court found Inova's remaining arguments unpersuasive.

Appellant Stivers Automotive of Lexington, Inc. (Stivers) and Respondent South Carolina Federal Credit Union (SCFCU) were parties to a Dealer Agreement (Agreement), under which SCFCU agreed to purchase sales contracts between Stivers and purchasers of its vehicles. Among other provisions in the Agreement, Stivers warranted certain representations made in connection to its sales contracts assigned to SCFCU. Hiram Riley (Riley) sought to purchase a vehicle from Stivers but was unable to qualify for financing. Stivers' salesman, Tom Roper (Roper), indicated that Riley could get the car if he found a co-signer. Riley contacted his sister, Mildred Higgins (Higgins), who agreed to co-sign for the car. Roper then visited Higgins at her home to sign the appropriate paperwork. After Roper thoroughly explained the documents, Higgins indicated she understood and signed the paperwork. As it turned out, the paperwork was drafted so that Higgins was the sole purchaser of the car, not a co-signer. Ultimately, SCFCU approved the loan to Higgins for the purchase price. Riley picked up the vehicle, with the understanding that he was to make the payments. Riley eventually stopped making payments on the car, stopped driving it, and told SCFCU where it could recover the car. SCFCU hired an agent to repossess the vehicle. SCFCU filed a complaint against Higgins, given that her name was on the loan. Higgins denied the allegations in the complaint, stating that she was incompetent at the time of the execution of the contract. Subsequently, SCFCU amended its complaint, alleging Stivers breached the Agreement. The trial court granted SCFCU's motion for a directed verdict against Stivers, finding Higgins lacked capacity to contract and Stivers breached the Agreement in that regard. The court also held that Stivers breached all contract warranties. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by directing a verdict against Stivers on the issue of capacity. Additionally, the Court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict to SCFCU as to the other warranties contained in the contract, as well as the amount of damages due SCFCU.

This case involved a contract dispute between 3-D & Co. and Tewâs Excavating, Inc. The dispute was over the terms of a construction contract for two roads in the Scenic View Subdivision of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 3-D & Co. raised twelve issues on appeal, which in sum, contended that the superior court applied the wrong legal standards and arrived at the wrong factual conclusions regarding the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court took each of 3-D's issues in turn and affirmed the superior court's decisions in all respects.

In 2002, Defendants decided to purchase, renovate, and resell a home located in Medford Lakes. According to their plan, Defendants Christopher Masso and John Torrence would finance the purchase; Defendant James Githens would perform the renovations; and Defendant real estate agent Jennifer Lynch would serve as the listing agent. Plaintiff Debra Lombardi viewed the home and made an offer. The sales contract, which was signed by Masso and Torrence, indicated that the house was being sold to Lombardi âas isâ and that any guarantees, unless set in writing, would be void. However, handwritten into the contract was a notation to âsee construction addendum attached.â That addendum reflected at least seventy repairs and renovations. At the closing, the house was nowhere near completion. Masso agreed to place money in escrow to ensure completion of the renovations. The escrow was to be held until which time the renovations would be completed. Against her realtorâs advice, Lombardi went ahead with the closing. Thereafter, the house remained unfinished and Plaintiff filed suit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, finding that Lombardi accepted the property âas is,â Defendants did not breach the contract, Defendants could not be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act, and they made no misrepresentations. Later the trial judge would write a letter to the parties, including the dismissed defendants, informing them that he was going to reconsider his order granting summary judgment and was scheduling a new hearing on the issue. The judge ultimately vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Appellate Division granted defendantsâ motion for leave to appeal, remanded to the trial court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ultimately reversed the trial court. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the Appellate Division correctly determined that the trial courtâs original summary judgment order dismissing several of the defendants was issued in error, the trial judge was well within his discretion in revisiting and vacating the summary judgment order.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on his claim of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. The district court held that plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment on two of the five elements necessary to sustain his claim. The court held that the district court erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain plaintiff's claim that defendant brought suit against him on the guaranty without probable cause. The court also held that a jury must decide what was defendant's motive or purpose in suing plaintiff if it in fact understood it had no reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits of its claim against plaintiff.

This case was remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court. Appellants Keith Litman and Robert Watchel asked the Third Circuit to reverse a district court order that compelled them to arbitrate their contract dispute with Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) on an individual rather than class-wide basis. In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit vacated the district court order because a recent Third Circuit precedent bound the Court to conclude that class arbitration should have been available to Appellants. Verizon responded by seeking a stay of the mandate and seeking review by the Supreme Court. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and applicable legal authority, the Third Circuit concluded that the applicable law at issue that required the availability of classwide arbitration created a scheme inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district courtâs order compelling individual arbitration in accordance with the terms of the individual Appellantsâ contracts with Verizon.

Third-party defendant Providence Holdings, Inc. appealed a partial summary judgment that awarded Skilstaf, Inc. and Park Avenue Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (PACA) damages arising out of a loan dispute. Providence is an insurance holding company. Skilstaf and PACA loaned Providence $3.1 million under three âsurplus loan agreementsâ to help one of its subsidiaries carry out its insurance business and âmeet regulatory requirements as to capital and surplus.â Providence was required to repay Skilstaf and PACA âwhen and as interest and principal are received on the . . . surplus note[s],â In 2005, Providence canceled the surplus certificates and converted them to paid-in capital. In 2008, Providence sold its subsidiary. At some point thereafter, the subsidiary was placed into receivership and liquidated. Providence made interest payments under the surplus loan agreements to Skilstaf and PACA through November 2009, but failed to repay any principal. Skilstaf and PACA sued Providence, and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the surplus loan agreements mandated repayment of the loans when Providence converted the surplus certificates to paid-in capital. The district court agreed, stating that âthe indebtedness represented by the surplus notes was discharged by the conversion and that this discharge/conversion effected a repayment of the surplus notes within the meaning of the surplus loan agreements.â Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court for substantially the same reasons.

Defendant manufactures medical goods and has distributors all over the U.S., including plaintiffs, which had exclusive distributorship agreements. When defendant terminated the agreements, plaintiffs were forced to shut down their businesses and sued for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The district court dismissed a negligent misrepresentation claim. A jury returned a verdict against defendant on remaining claims, awarding actual and punitive damages. The magistrate set aside the punitive damages awards. The Seventh Circuit vacated the awards of lost profits as not allowed by the contract and affirmed the decision to set aside punitive damages, but affirmed verdicts against defendant on intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. The court vacated awards of actual damages, as supported by insufficient evidence.

This appeal stemmed from numerous trademark and unfair competition claims over the name "Patsy's." Patsy's Italian Restaurant appealed, and Patsy's Pizzeria cross-appealed, from a judgment of the district court after a jury trial on claims brought pursuant to trademark and unfair competition law. The court upheld the district court's jury instructions; affirmed the district court's refusal to grant a new trial on the issue of whether Patsy's Pizzeria made fraudulent statements to the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as its refusal to vacate the jury's verdict that Patsy's Italian Restaurant did not fraudulently obtain its trademark registrations; affirmed the district court's refusal to reinstate Patsy's Pizzeria's trademark registrations; and upheld the district court's denial of attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.