Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Steven and Connie Falkenstein appealed a district court judgment dismissing their claims against Jon W. Dill and Credico, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Falkensteins received medical services from Medcenter One but failed to pay the total balance due. The debt was assigned to Credico, Inc. for collection. Dill, an in-house attorney and employee of Credico, Inc., communicated with the Falkensteins regarding the debt. In March 2009, judgment was entered in favor of Credico, Inc. for the amount of the Falkensteins' debt, including interest. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error with the district court's dismissal and affirmed. View "Falkenstein v. Dill" on Justia Law

Pro se litigant Sharon McCrea appealed a district court's judgment that awarded over eight thousand dollars to CBM Collections, a Missoula collection agency. McCrea owned a business which had an outstanding credit card bill with the Missoula Federal Credit Union (MFCU). She was notified that the debts were being assigned to CBM for collection. CBM subsequently filed its complaint to seek the full amount owned plus interest. McCrea answered, arguing that MFCU was unfairly and deliberately targeting her for collection and that the matter should be "remanded" to the credit union so that she could continue making incremental payments. McCrea did not deny owing the debts. She sought discovery of credit card statements and cell phone billing statements to establish she had been in regular contact with MFCU in an attempt to resolve the matter. The district court granted CBM's motion for judgment on the pleadings without ruling on McCrea's discovery request and entered the award. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "CBI Inc. v. McCrea" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Lewis, Ross and Jennings, were limited guarantors of loans owed by River City, which filed for bankruptcy. Defendant acquired the original lender’s position and reported to credit reporting agencies that the plaintiffs were obligated in the full amount of the underlying loans rather than in limited amounts. In a suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C.1681–1681x, defendant counterclaimed on the guaranty agreements. The district court found defendant liable to each plaintiff for FCRA violations and the plaintiffs in breach of their guaranty agreements. The court awarded Lewis $30,000 in actual damages and $120,000 in punitive damages and each remaining plaintiff $25,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The court jointly awarded plaintiffs $20,024.55 in costs and $218,674.00 in attorney’s fees. On the breach of guaranty claims, the court found Lewises liable for $256,797.29, Jennings liable for $255,367.29, and Ross liable for $306,726.14. Defendant objected to Lewis’s garnishment, arguing that defendant was the net judgment creditor because the proper method of calculation required the court to: add the amounts defendant owed plaintiffs (including attorney’s fees and costs); add the amount paintiffs collectively owed defendant; then set off the former sum from the latter. The district court rejected the argument. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Lewis v. United Joint Venture" on Justia Law

Petitioner Tanner Mickelsen appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Broadway Ford, Inc. on his complaint that alleged fraud in the inducement. Petitioner asked for a rescission of the contract between the parties based on that alleged fraud or alternatively on mutual mistake. Petitioner leased a truck from Broadway Ford. The truck had over 1400 miles on it, but was sold as new and under factory warranty. The truck had been modified with a six-inch suspension lift and four oversized tires. Though he purchased the truck in Idaho Falls, Petitioner resided in Moses Lake, and took the truck to his local dealership for repairs. In the first year of the lease, Discovery Ford made several repairs to the vehicle under the warranty. But when Petitioner took the truck back to Discovery Ford for "handling problems," the service manager advised Petitioner that these repairs would not be covered by the warranty because of the lift modifications made to the truck's suspension. Broadway Ford told Petitioner that they would try to resolve the issue if Petitioner drove or shipped the truck to Idaho Falls. Petitioner did not take the truck back to Idaho Falls or ship it there. He eventually stopped making lease payments and voluntarily surrendered the truck to the bank who provided the financing. Finding that the district court made no error in granting summary judgment in favor of Broadway Ford, the Court affirmed that court's decision.

An individual owing a debt sued a debt collection agency. The suit alleged the agency's debt-collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, by contradicting and overshadowing the statutory notices in the letter. The standard for evaluating any potential deception in the letter was whether an unsophisticated or least sophisticated consumer would be confused by the letter. The district court concluded that the letter did not violate the statute. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the debt collection agency's letter was not inconsistent with and did not overshadow the letter's Section 1692g(a)'s notice; and (2) therefore, a least-sophisticated or unsophisticated consumer would not be confused by the letter.

Defendant Helen Cupido appealed a trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of Recovery Resources, LLC. Helen and David Cupido married in January 1993. In March 2010, David Cupido incurred medical expenses at St. Alexius Medical Center. The parties divorced in April 2011. Under the divorce judgment, the trial court ordered David Cupido responsible for payment of the debt owed to St. Alexius Medical Center. The divorce judgment also required Helen and David to indemnify one another from any and all collection activities, which may arise regarding debts awarded to a party. Recovery Resources, LLC, a collection company, sued Helen and David for $9,494.61 owed to St. Alexius Medical Center for medical care provided to David while he and Helen were married and living together. David did not answer Recovery Resources' claim and a default judgment was entered against him. Helen answered denying liability and cross-claimed for indemnity against David. Helen then moved for summary judgment arguing she was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because the divorce judgment allocated the debt to David. Recovery Resources resisted and moved for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because Helen was liable for the debt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Recovery Resources. On appeal, Helen contended the trial court erred: (1) by concluding she is jointly and severally liable for the debt David incurred, and (2) by failing to dismiss her from the lawsuit based on the indemnification language in the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the indemnification language in the divorce judgment between Helen and David Cupido did not affect Recovery Resources' statutory right to recover the debt. Accordingly the trial court did not err in failing to dismiss Helen from the collection action.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) operated a customer rewards program, called Camel Cash, from 1991 to 1007. Customers could purchase Camel cigarettes, save Camel Cash certificates, enroll in the program, and ultimately redeem their certificates for merchandise featured in RJR catalogs. Plaintiffs alleged that, in reliance on RJR's actions, they purchased Camel cigarettes, enrolled in the program, and saved their certificates for future redemption. They alleged that in 2006 RJR abruptly ceased accepting certificates for redemption, making Plaintiffs' unredeemed certificates worthless. Plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of two California consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (2) reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged these claims.

At issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case was whether an adverse claim to a stake may be so lacking in substance that a neutral stakeholder cannot interplead in good faith. Interpleader is proper when a stakeholder has at least a good faith belief that there are conflicting colorable claims. Appellee in this case was an insurance company that sought to interplead disputed insurance proceeds. Seeking to interplead the insurance funds, Appellee filed a counterclaim against Appellant and a third party complaint against Appellant's former husband. The district court found that interpleader was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellee interpleaded in good faith, and consequently, the district court's judgment in interpleader was proper.

Plaintiffs purchased furniture from the Fortunoff store and purchased a furniture protection plan. Defendant sold the plans to Fortunoff, which in turn sold them to plaintiffs. After the Fortunoff store closed and the company went into bankruptcy, defendant rejected plaintiffs’ claims under the plan. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging breach of contract, that the store closing termination clause in the plan violated New York General Business Law 395-a, and deceptive business practices in violation of General Business Law 36 349. The district court dismissed, holding that there was no implied cause of action under 395-a. The Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals: May parties seek to have contractual provisions that run contrary to General Business Law 395-a declared void as against public policy? May plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to 349 on the theory that defendants deceived them by including a contractual provision that violates 395-a and later enforcing this agreement?

While vacationing in Arizona, plaintiffs contracted to purchase a condominium in a planned development in Mexico. The project was managed by defendant, an Arizona resident. After making the first of three installment payments, plaintiffs became concerned and sought reassurance. Defendant sent several communications to plaintiffs (in Wisconsin) assuring them the project was properly financed and would be completed on time. They made additional payments. The unit was not completed on time and investigation revealed that the project did not have financing; advance sales were funding the development. Plaintiffs sued in Wisconsin state court, alleging intentional misrepresentation and seeking rescission and damages. Following removal to federal district court, the case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The complaint alleges that repeated communications to plaintiffs’ Wisconsin home were part of a deliberate attempt to create a false sense of security and to induce plaintiffs to make payments. The communications are critical to the claim of intentional misrepresentation. Defendant was aware that the harm would be felt in Wisconsin. The allegations are sufficient to establish minimum contacts necessary to satisfy due-process requirements for jurisdiction in Wisconsin. The communications satisfy the “local act or omission” provision of the Wisconsin long-arm statute.