Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In January 2019, Raymond Robinson and his son sued Emerald Homes, L.L.C., and 21st Mortgage Corporation in the Baldwin Circuit Court. Robinson had contracted with Emerald to purchase a mobile home, financed by a loan from 21st Mortgage. After tearing down his existing house in preparation for the new mobile home, the loan was not completed, allegedly due to Emerald and/or 21st Mortgage's refusal to finalize the transaction. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, suppression, and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.The trial court compelled arbitration for claims against Emerald and granted summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage on Raymond's claims. The case proceeded to a jury trial on Robinson's claims against 21st Mortgage. The jury found in favor of Robinson on promissory fraud and the tort of outrage, awarding him $2,980,000 in total damages. 21st Mortgage's post-trial motions, including for judgment as a matter of law (JML), were denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that Robinson did not present substantial evidence of promissory fraud, as he failed to prove that 21st Mortgage had no intention to perform the loan promise at the time it was made or intended to deceive him. The court also found that Robinson did not meet all the conditions required for the loan, and the failure to close the loan was not due to any fraudulent intent by 21st Mortgage.Regarding the tort of outrage, the court held that the conduct of 21st Mortgage did not meet the extreme and outrageous standard required for such a claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "21st Mortgage Corporation v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS), a medical debt collector, sought to collect $460 from Katrina Melanese (now Katrina Sullivan) for an emergency room visit in September 2017. Sullivan was treated at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (EIRMC) by Intermountain Emergency Physicians (IEP), which did not collect insurance information directly from patients. Sullivan provided her insurance information to EIRMC, but IEP billed her outdated insurance information from a previous visit. When the outdated insurers denied the claim, IEP assigned the bill to MRS for collection.The magistrate court ruled in favor of Sullivan, finding that an implied condition precedent existed, requiring IEP to bill Sullivan’s insurance before seeking payment from her. The district court affirmed the magistrate court’s decision, agreeing that the condition precedent was not satisfied because IEP did not make reasonable efforts to obtain Sullivan’s correct insurance information.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that an implied-in-fact contract existed between IEP and Sullivan, and that the contract included a condition precedent requiring IEP to bill Sullivan’s insurance before seeking payment from her. The court found substantial and competent evidence supporting the magistrate court’s finding of the condition precedent, noting that Sullivan provided her insurance information to EIRMC and that IEP’s general practice was to bill insurance before seeking payment from patients. The court also rejected MRS’s argument that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) prevented the application of the condition precedent in emergency room settings.The court concluded that IEP failed to make reasonable efforts to satisfy the condition precedent and, therefore, MRS could not collect the debt from Sullivan. The court awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to Sullivan. View "Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Melanese" on Justia Law

In 2014, Casey Moyer entered into an agreement with Doug Lasher Construction, Inc. for the construction and purchase of a new home, which was substantially completed in November 2014. Over the next six-and-a-half years, Moyer repeatedly informed Lasher Construction about issues with the home, particularly water leakage, and received assurances that the issues would be fixed. However, the problems persisted, and Moyer and Caitlin Bower filed suit against Lasher Construction in November 2021, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Lasher Construction, ruling that all claims were time-barred under Idaho Code sections 5-241(b) and 5-216, which require that claims arising out of a contract for the construction of real property be brought within five years of the final completion of construction. The court also found that the Idaho Consumer Protection Act claims were time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 48-619. The court rejected the homeowners' arguments for equitable estoppel and the repair doctrine, concluding that they failed to show that Lasher Construction prevented them from pursuing their claims within the statutory period.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court reaffirmed that the repair doctrine is not available in Idaho and upheld the district court's conclusion that the homeowners failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel. The court also agreed that the text messages and the July 2, 2021, response to the NORA demand did not constitute enforceable independent contracts. Lasher Construction was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Moyer v. Lasher Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

A clothing retailer, Cato Corporation, with over 1,300 stores, purchased an "all-risk" commercial property insurance policy from Zurich American Insurance Company in July 2019. In the spring of 2020, Cato alleged that the COVID-19 virus and related government orders forced it to close or severely curtail operations, causing significant revenue losses and expenses for remediation and reconfiguration of its stores. Cato sought coverage for these losses under its insurance policy, but Zurich refused, leading Cato to file a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract and violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.The Superior Court of Mecklenburg County dismissed Cato's claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, relying on the Court of Appeals' decision in North State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that tangible alteration to the property was necessary to recover for a "direct physical loss of or damage" to property, which Cato failed to allege sufficiently.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the dismissal but disagreed with its reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that Cato sufficiently alleged a "direct physical loss of or damage" to property under the precedent set in North State Deli. However, the Court found that the viral contamination exclusion in Cato's policy precluded coverage for the alleged losses. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision but affirmed its judgment dismissing Cato's claims. View "Cato Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included provisions for interest payments and additional payments coinciding with expected crop payments. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented material facts about the property, including water rights and the value of the 2022 crop. JHVS claimed the actual value of the crop was significantly lower than represented, and they fell behind on payments, leading the Slates to record a notice of default.JHVS filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Madera County, raising seven causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission based on fraud or mutual mistake, and injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure process. JHVS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale, arguing that the Slates and Hayer had lied about water restrictions and misrepresented the crop's value. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after the defendants did not appear or file a response.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was void as to the Slates due to the lack of proper service and reversed the preliminary injunction order with respect to the Slates. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law

Niv Goomai and Bar Hajbi purchased a property in Cincinnati and contracted with H&E Enterprise, L.L.C., Ohad Investment Group, and Avi Ohad for renovations. The renovations were not completed, leading Goomai to sell the property. Goomai then sued the defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking actual damages but not injunctive relief.A jury trial was held before a magistrate, where the jury found that H&E had breached its contract and awarded Goomai $30,604.09 in damages. The jury also found that H&E and Ohad had engaged in deceptive trade practices but awarded $0 in damages for this violation. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Goomai subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which the magistrate denied, reasoning that Goomai did not qualify as a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act since they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Goomai appealed.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one who obtains a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they received a remedy. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Goomai was entitled.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and concluded that to be a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must obtain actual damages or injunctive relief. Since Goomai did not receive any monetary damages or injunctive relief, they were not considered prevailing parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying attorney’s fees. View "Goomai v. H&E Enterprise, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, and its sole member, Alaina Garcia, received a $450,000 loan from World Business Lenders, LLC (WBL) and its subsidiaries in December 2020. The loan, secured by real property in Gallatin County, had an annual percentage rate of approximately 85% and required weekly payments. Bluebird signed several agreements, including a Business Promissory Note and Security Agreement, which listed Axos Bank as the lender, although Bluebird had no prior dealings with Axos. After falling behind on payments, Bluebird sold the collateral property in a distress sale and paid off the loan in October 2022, having paid a total of $945,990.39.Bluebird sued WBL, alleging that WBL engaged in a "rent-a-bank" scheme to evade Montana's usury laws, claiming that Axos Bank was merely a front and that WBL was the true lender. Bluebird sought a declaration that Montana law applied and sought double the interest paid above the maximum allowable rate under Montana law. WBL filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration based on the agreements' arbitration and choice-of-law provisions.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court denied WBL's motion, ruling that Montana law must be applied to determine the enforceability of the arbitration and choice-of-law provisions. The court treated WBL's motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and found that the validity of the arbitration clause was for the court to decide, not an arbitrator.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the general rule that courts determine arbitrability was not overcome by the facts of this case. The court found no clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, despite WBL's arguments regarding the incorporation of AAA rules. The court did not address the merits of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement or the choice-of-law provision. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

Shymikka Griggs filed a data-breach action against NHS Management, LLC, a consulting firm providing management services for nursing homes and physical-rehabilitation facilities. NHS collects sensitive personal and health information from employees, patients, and vendors. In May 2021, NHS discovered a cyberattack on its network, which lasted 80 days. NHS notified affected individuals, including Griggs, in March 2022. Griggs, a former NHS employee, claimed her personal information was found on the dark web, leading to credit issues, spam communications, and fraudulent activities.Griggs initially filed a class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama but later dismissed it. She then filed a class-action complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court in June 2023, alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. NHS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed Griggs's complaint with prejudice.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that Griggs failed to sufficiently plead her claims. Specifically, she did not demonstrate that NHS owed her a duty under Alabama law, failed to establish proximate cause for her negligence per se claim, did not allege intentional conduct for her invasion-of-privacy claim, and did not show that she conferred a benefit on NHS for her unjust-enrichment claim. Additionally, the court found that breach of confidence is not a recognized cause of action in Alabama and that Griggs did not establish a fiduciary relationship between her and NHS. View "Griggs v. NHS Management, LLC" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law