Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Extech Building Materials, Inc., a supplier, provided building materials to E&N Construction, Inc. under a two-page “Credit Application and Agreement.” Two E&N representatives, including Joaquim G. Ferreira, signed the agreement. Above the signature lines, a paragraph stated that the signers “personally guarantee unconditionally, at all times . . . the payment of indebtedness . . . of the within named firm.” However, the signature lines used the pre-printed words “No Title,” and neither signer specified whether they signed as representatives, individually, or both. E&N later defaulted on payment, and Extech sued, seeking to hold Ferreira personally liable as a guarantor.The Superior Court, Law Division, denied Extech’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Ferreira, finding the agreement did not make it clear that the signers were responsible as guarantors for E&N’s debt. Extech appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, holding that genuine issues of fact about the parties’ intentions precluded summary judgment for Ferreira and Roney. The trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Extech was affirmed. Ferreira then petitioned for certification, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a valid personal guaranty of a company’s indebtedness requires the signer to unambiguously manifest their intent to be personally bound. It is possible for a single signature to bind both a company and the individual as guarantor, but only if the agreement clearly expresses that intent. In this case, Ferreira did not unambiguously manifest an intent to be personally bound as guarantor. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment in Ferreira’s favor, as well as dismissal of the complaint against Roney. View "Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. E&N Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a real estate transaction in which a buyer agreed to purchase a property in Miami for $5,450,000 from two sellers, with a closing set for October 2021. The sellers subsequently discovered a mortgage restriction preventing them from closing until January 2022, which resulted in their failure to close on time. They acknowledged the breach, but subsequent negotiations to revive the deal fell through because the buyer wanted a discounted price to account for damages incurred from the delay, which the sellers refused.The matter proceeded to litigation. The buyer sued for specific performance and damages in state court; the sellers removed the action to federal court and also brought their own federal suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the buyer, not they, had breached. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the sellers’ declaratory action and granted summary judgment to the buyer on breach of contract, reserving the amount of damages for trial. After a bench trial, the district court awarded the buyer specific performance and damages, ordering the sale to proceed. The parties closed the transaction as ordered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the issue of specific performance was moot because the sale had already occurred and the property was now owned by third parties not before the court, making further relief impossible. However, the court found the damages issue remained live. It affirmed the district court’s damages award in all respects except for damages for lost tax savings, which it reversed due to insufficient evidence that the buyer itself suffered those losses. The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with the appellate decision. View "Marmol v. Kalonymus Development Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute that arose after a company, Motiva Performance Engineering, failed to deliver on an agreement to upgrade a vehicle for the plaintiff, resulting in a jury verdict against Motiva for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The company’s managing member, who was also its attorney, transferred Motiva’s Ferrari to another company he controlled shortly after the verdict and subsequently used the car as collateral for a loan without disclosing this to the court. Additional questionable conduct included failing to disclose or potentially backdating a promissory note and depositing insurance proceeds into his personal account. These acts occurred while the court was overseeing asset proceedings to satisfy the judgment against Motiva.Following these actions, the district court held a hearing and issued a sanctions order against the managing member and his associated entities for what it termed remedial contempt, requiring payment of the underlying judgment and a $50,000 donation to charity. The sanctions order also referenced Rule 1-011 NMRA (Rule 11) violations due to misstatements in court filings. The managing member moved for reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support remedial contempt, but appealed the order before the motion was decided. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions on both inherent powers and Rule 11 grounds, though a dissent questioned the breadth of conduct relied upon under Rule 11.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that the district court erred by imposing punitive contempt sanctions without affording criminal-level due process protections and that such sanctions could not be justified under the court’s inherent powers without those protections. However, the court upheld the sanctions under Rule 11, as the due process requirements for Rule 11 are not equivalent to those for contempt. The holding was limited to willful misstatements made in documents filed with the court. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Butler v. Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert Sullivan entered into a contract with Nomad Capitalist USA, LLC for consulting services related to international relocation and financial planning, paying approximately $52,500. The contract was governed by Arizona law and included a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated exclusively in Hong Kong. Andrew Henderson, founder and manager of Nomad, signed the contract on Nomad’s behalf but not in his individual capacity. After the business relationship deteriorated, Sullivan sued both Nomad and Henderson in Arizona, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. Both Nomad and Henderson sought dismissal based on the forum selection clause.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted Nomad’s motion to dismiss, finding the forum selection clause applicable to Sullivan’s claims against Nomad. However, it denied Henderson’s motion to dismiss, holding that the clause did not apply to Sullivan’s consumer fraud claim against Henderson as Henderson was not a signatory to the contract. The court dismissed all contract claims against Henderson, leaving only the statutory consumer fraud claim. Henderson petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for special action relief, which declined jurisdiction. He then sought review by the Supreme Court of Arizona.The Supreme Court of Arizona considered whether to adopt the “closely related party doctrine” or “alternative estoppel theory” to permit a non-signatory like Henderson to enforce the forum selection clause. The Court declined to adopt either doctrine, emphasizing that contract provisions control and that established doctrines for non-signatories—such as third-party beneficiary or alter ego—are sufficient. It held that, under Arizona law, a non-signatory cannot enforce a forum selection clause unless explicitly included in the contract. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "HENDERSON v HON. MOSKOWITZ/SULLIVAN" on Justia Law

A member of the Kuwaiti royal family was defrauded by a Baltimore restaurateur, who convinced her to send nearly $7.8 million under the guise of investing in real estate and restaurant ventures in the United States. The restaurateur used the funds to acquire multiple properties, including a condominium in New York City and a home in Pikesville, Maryland, but secretly held ownership in his own name and for his personal use. After the fraud was uncovered, the investor sued the restaurateur for fraud and sought to impose a constructive trust over the properties purchased with her funds. Around the same time, she attempted to file a notice of lis pendens to protect her interest in the Pikesville property, but the notice was recorded against the wrong property and was thus ineffective.During discovery, the investor learned that World Business Lenders, LLC (WBL) had issued three loans to the restaurateur, each secured by properties acquired with her funds. She then filed suit against WBL in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that WBL aided and abetted the restaurateur’s fraud by encumbering the properties with liens, thereby hindering her ability to recover on any judgment. Following a bench trial, the district court found for WBL on two of the loans, but found WBL liable for aiding and abetting fraud in relation to the loan secured by the Pikesville home, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment for WBL on the first two loans but reversed as to the Pikesville loan. The Fourth Circuit held that WBL was not willfully blind to the restaurateur’s fraud in any of the loans as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to enter final judgment for WBL on all claims. View "Al-Sabah v. World Business Lenders, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael Dixon and Kalie Dixon entered into a contract with Best Choice Roofing Alabama, LLC for the replacement of the roof on their home in Washington County, Alabama. After the work was completed, the Dixons noticed leaks and water damage, and despite contacting the company and providing an opportunity to fix the issues, their concerns were not resolved. They alleged that their house became nearly uninhabitable and sought damages for breach of contract and wantonness.Best Choice Roofing Alabama moved to dismiss the claims for improper venue, pointing to a forum-selection clause in the contract requiring any lawsuits to be brought in Sumner County, Tennessee, under Tennessee law. The Dixons argued that enforcing this clause would be seriously inconvenient and deprive them of their day in court, citing financial hardship, the distance to Tennessee, and the location of evidence and witnesses in Alabama. The Washington Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the forum-selection clause clearly unreasonable and the chosen forum seriously inconvenient due to the circumstances faced by the Dixons, including their financial situation and the impact of the alleged damage.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss through a petition for writ of mandamus. Applying Alabama law, the Supreme Court held that outbound forum-selection clauses are enforceable unless enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable. The Court found that the Dixons failed to meet their burden to show that enforcement would deprive them of their day in court or that extraordinary facts justified disregarding the clause. The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion and granted the petition, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims against Best Choice Roofing Alabama. View "Ex parte Best Choice Roofing Alabama, LLC" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an individual agreed to sell her furniture and design company to a limited liability company controlled by two individuals for $2.7 million, with payment to be made in installments. The seller also entered into a consulting agreement to assist in the transition but was terminated a few months later. The seller alleged that she did not receive compensation due under the consulting agreement and that the buyer failed to pay the final installment of the purchase price. She asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and promissory fraud. The defendants counterclaimed and brought in several third parties, but most of those claims were eventually dismissed, leaving several claims—including for declaratory judgment, conversion, slander, breach of contract, and tortious interference—still pending.The Cullman Circuit Court tried only the seller’s promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against the two individual defendants, entering judgment based on a jury verdict for the seller and awarding over $10 million in damages. The court stayed all claims against the corporate defendants after they filed for bankruptcy. Despite multiple claims and parties remaining, the circuit court certified its judgment against the individuals as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The Supreme Court found that closely intertwined and factually overlapping claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims remained unresolved, and that proceeding in piecemeal fashion risked inconsistent results and unnecessary duplication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s order was not properly certified as final and thus was not appealable at this stage. View "Roberson v. Daniel" on Justia Law

After the dissolution of their marriage, Jane and Kenton Girard became involved in prolonged legal proceedings regarding custody of their two minor children. Following Kenton's remarriage to Marissa Girard, the Illinois state court added Marissa as a party to the postjudgment custody dispute in 2023. The situation grew more complicated when Kenton filed a cross-claim against Marissa over a postnuptial agreement, which he argued did not obligate him to indemnify her for legal expenses or lost earnings related to the custody litigation. Marissa responded by removing the entire case to federal court, asserting the existence of a federal question.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the removal and determined that the case did not present a federal question. The court found that the dispute revolved around state-law issues of contract and domestic relations, and therefore remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Marissa appealed this remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. However, the Seventh Circuit dismissed her appeal, noting that remand orders are generally not appealable unless the case was removed under specific statutory provisions, which did not apply here.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit then addressed a motion for sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed by Jane Girard. The court held that Marissa’s appeal was frivolous, both because removal to federal court was unwarranted and because the remand order was not appealable. The court awarded Jane damages in the amount of $2,808.75 for fees and costs incurred in defending the appeal. View "Girard v. Girard" on Justia Law

The case concerns an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, involving George Bowens and a driver named Lisa Daniels, who was at fault. Bowens sustained injuries and held a $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with State Farm. Daniels’ insurance had a $30,000 liability limit, which was offered to Bowens as a settlement for his injuries. Following established statutory procedures, Bowens notified State Farm of this offer, State Farm consented and waived subrogation rights, and Bowens accepted the $30,000. Bowens then sought to recover the remaining $20,000 available under his UIM policy from State Farm, which denied the claim.Bowens filed a breach of contract action in the District Court for Prince George’s County, seeking $20,000. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Bowens would have to prove total damages of $50,000—exceeding the court’s $30,000 jurisdictional cap. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case. Bowens appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, which affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the District Court would need to find damages over $30,000 and thus could not grant relief.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the District Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the amount the plaintiff seeks from the defendant in the pending action, not by the total underlying damages or prior settlements received from the tortfeasor’s insurer. Since Bowens’ claim against State Farm was for $20,000, the District Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the circuit court and ordered the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Bowens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins." on Justia Law