Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Buyer contracted in 2004 to purchase Sellers’ Francisco gas station, to build a condominium project. Buyer had to obtain the necessary “Entitlements” for development. It took eight years to secure the conditional use permit. Sellers alleged the deal had expired. In 2014, Buyer sued, asserting breach of contract (specific performance) and quantum meruit to recover costs for work performed at Sellers’ Mountain View gas station. On the breach of contract claim, the court found the jury deadlocked and declared a mistrial. At Buyer’s request, the court decided that claim and found Buyer failed to perform his contractual obligations and was not entitled to specific performance. On the quantum meruit claim, the jury awarded Buyer $156,000 as the reasonable cost of work at Seller’s Mountain View property. The court vacated that verdict because Buyer had not produced a certificate of licensure to show compliance with Business and Professions Code 7031. The court of appeal affirmed in part. Buyer’s election to have the court decide his specific performance claim waived any claims of error he had and there was substantial evidence that Buyer failed to perform by not timely paying the purchase price after securing the Entitlements; he was properly denied specific performance. The court reversed on the quantum meruit claim. Public policy is not served by vacating the verdict awarded Buyer, an undisputed California-licensed contractor, for work he performed. View "Tierney v. Javaid" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of a good faith purchaser at a lien sale that had acquired the contents of a storage unit free and clear of plaintiff's claim that the sale violated the California Self-Service Storage Facility Act. The court held that the conversion action was barred by the good faith purchaser provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code section 21711. The court also held that the action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel which precluded a party from relying upon a theory in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted. In the first suit against the storage facility owner, plaintiff claimed the owner did not abide by the requirements of the Act. In this case, plaintiff claimed that the Act did not apply and that defendant was liable for conversion regardless of whether he was a good faith purchaser. View "Nist v. Hall" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not err in denying Sellers’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial in this case brought by Buyers against Sellers of a house alleging violation of statutory disclosure requirements.Shortly after purchasing a house, Buyers experienced water-penetration issues. Buyers sued Sellers, claiming violation of the statutory disclosure requirements, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. The jury found in favor of Buyers on its statutory disclosures claim and in favor of Sellers on the remaining claims. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Sellers’ renewed motion for judgment of a matter of law and Sellers’ motion for new trial; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees. View "Center of Life Church v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, 60(b) provides the exclusive remedy for dissenting members of a limited liability company that has voted to merge, so long as the merger is undertaken in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, 59-63.In this case, a member of a limited liability company (LLC) conducted a merger in breach of his fiduciary and contractual duties. The judge granted equitable relief. At issue was whether distribution of dissenting members’ interest in the LLC is the exclusive remedy of minority shareholders who objected to the merger and whether the judge erred in declining to rescind the merger. The Supreme Court held (1) where, as here, a merger was not conducted in compliance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, 63, the remedy provided by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156C, 60(b) providing for distribution of dissenting members’ interest is not exclusive; (2) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy in this case, as rescission of the merger would be complicated and inequitable; and (3) the portion of the trial judge’s decision that increased Plaintiff’s interest in the merged LLC to five percent is remanded because there was no basis in the record for that figure. View "Allison v. Eriksson" on Justia Law

At issue here was cross-claims arising out of a bail bondsman’s attempt to seize a bailed man who had failed to appear for a court hearing.Rodriguez, the bailed man, left New Jersey to return to his home in Puerto Rico in violation of the bail agreement. When Rodriguez missed a court date in New Jersey, the bail bond was declared forfeited. Agents acting for Speedy Bail Bonds seized Rodriguez in Puerto Rico. Rodriguez filed suit against Speedy seeking damages for his seizure and detention. Rodriguez’s mother as co-plaintiff claimed mental anguish. Speedy counterclaimed for breach of the bail agreement. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Speedy. The First Circuit affirmed the damages award on the counterclaim but remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the question of whether the jury instructions as to the tort claims accurately reflected Puerto Rico law because the question of Puerto Rico law and out-of-state bounty hunters had not been briefed. View "Rodriguez-Tirado v. Speedy Bail Bonds" on Justia Law

The common law governs provisions of an antenuptial agreement that do not fall within the safe harbor of Minn. Stat. 519.11(1), and the multifactor Kinney test is the common-law test applicable to antenuptial agreements. See In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007).Wife petitioned for dissolution and moved to set aside the antenuptial agreement she signed just before her marriage. The district court invalidated the agreement, concluding that it was procedurally unfair because Wife did not have an adequate opportunity to meet with legal counsel of her own choice and that it was substantively unfair and the time it was made and executed. The court of appeals affirmed on different grounds, concluding (1) to the extent the district court relied on Minn. Stat. 519.11 for evaluating procedural fairness, the court erred; (2) agreements that purport to distribute marital property, such as the agreement in this case, must be evaluated under the common law; and (3) the agreement was procedurally unfair. The Supreme Court affirmed after applying the Kinney factors to the entire agreement, holding that this agreement did not satisfy the common law test for procedurally fairness, and therefore, the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. View "Kremer v. Kremer" on Justia Law

CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (CBL) appealed an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Airs Aromatics, LLC (Airs). Airs sued CBL for breach of contract in 2011. The operative complaint alleged that Airs "suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated to exceed $25,000.00." The prayer likewise requested "damages in an amount to be proven." There was no other allegation in the complaint as to the amount of damages sought. CBL filed an answer and engaged in discovery. The parties participated in a settlement conference in which Airs demanded $5 million to settle all claims. In August 2012, the parties stipulated to withdraw CBL's answer and allow Airs to obtain a default. A month later, Airs filed a Request for Court Judgment seeking over $3 million in damages. It also filed a document entitled, "Evidence of Damages" supporting the requested amount. The court held a default prove-up hearing and, in November 2012, entered default judgment against CBL in the amount of $3,016,802.90. Years passed. CBL filed a motion in April 2017 to set aside the default judgment. Citing Code of Civil Procedure sections 580(a) and 585(c), CBL argued the court could not enter a judgment awarding damages greater than that specifically demanded in the complaint. It argued the default judgment was void and requested that it be vacated pursuant to section 473(d). Airs opposed the motion, arguing the default judgment was merely voidable, not void. In addition, Airs argued the court could exercise discretion to deny CBL's motion on equitable grounds. The court held a hearing and denied CBL's motion, finding CBL had adequate notice of the damages sought by Airs. CBL argued to the Court of Appeal the default judgment was void. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding the default judgment had to be vacated. View "Airs Aromatics v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies" on Justia Law

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the statute of limitations applicable to section 10-3-1116, C.R.S. (2017), which governed claims for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits. Specifically, the question centered on whether a claim brought pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 10-3-1116 was subject to the one-year statute of limitations found in Colorado Revised Statutes section 13-80-103(1)(d) and applicable to “[a]ll actions for any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” The Supreme Court held the one-year statute of limitations found in section 13-80-103(1)(d), C.R.S. (2017), did not apply to an action brought under section 10-3-1116(1) because section 10-3-1116(1) was not an “action[] for any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statute[]” within the meaning of section 13-80-103(1)(d). Therefore, the Court answered the certified question in the negative. View "Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2009, a fire started in an apartment building owned by respondents Guillermo and Evelia Barriga and insured by petitioner American Family Mutual Insurance Company (“American Family”). American Family made various payments to the and on behalf of the Barrigas, totaling $209,816.43. However, after a substantial amount of repair work had been completed, the contractor revised its estimate for the cost of the repairs. The revised estimate was higher than American Family’s initial estimate, primarily because of the need for additional repairs and asbestos remediation. In response, American Family initiated a third-party appraisal process outlined in the insurance policy intended to provide an impartial assessment of the needed repair costs. The appraiser fixed the award at $322,141.79. American Family then paid that award, less the $209,816.43 that had been previously paid to the Barrigas, resulting in a payment of $122,325.36. American Family also made an additional payment of $5435.44 for emergency board-up services. The Barrigas sued American Family for breach of contract, common law bad-faith breach of insurance contract, and unreasonable delay and denial of insurance benefits under section 10-3-1116(1), C.R.S. (2017). The jury found for the Barrigas on all claims, awarding damages, as relevant here, of $9270 for breach of contract and $136,930.80 for benefits unreasonably delayed or denied. The issue raised on appeal for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether an award of damages under section 10-3-1116(1), C.R.S. (2017), had to be reduced by an insurance benefit unreasonably delayed but ultimately recovered by an insured outside of a lawsuit. The Court held that an award under section 10-3-1116(1) must not be reduced by an amount unreasonably delayed but eventually paid by an insurer because the plain text of the statute provided no basis for such a reduction. The Court also concluded that a general rule against double recovery for a single harm did not prohibit a litigant from recovering under claims for both a violation of section 10-3- 1116(1) and breach of contract. View "Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Plaintiff, a municipal employee, had forfeited her merit protection status through contract, estoppel, and waiver without reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims because she failed to carry her burden of challenging all of the district court’s rulings, each of which was an independent basis for summary judgment.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Supreme Court precedent allowing a contract in conflict with a statute to survive, provided it does not violate public policy, does not extend to contracts involving government employees. The Supreme Court held that, although it was possible that Plaintiff was correct, Plaintiff was not entitled to relief because she failed to challenge the district court’s ruling that she was equitably estopped from claiming merit status. View "Howick v. Salt Lake City Corp." on Justia Law