Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this commercial dispute over an exclusive use clause in a lease for space in a shopping center, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not prevent the tenant from suing its landlord for contract damages after having won an earlier suit against the landlord for declaratory judgment, where both suits concern the same underlying facts. The court explained that the preclusion doctrine makes an exception for declaratory judgment actions, which are designed to give parties an efficient way to obtain a judicial declaration of their legal rights before positions become entrenched and irreversible damage to relationships occurs. Furthermore, in a case involving a continuing or recurrent wrong, a party may sue separately for after-accruing damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment awarding contract damages to the tenant. View "Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Group, LLC v. Higco, Inc." on Justia Law

Richard Turley appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States, acting on behalf of the United States Postal Service, awarding specific performance of an option to purchase real estate from Turley. The purchase option was contained in a lease of the premises that the Postal Service had renewed on several occasions. Turley argued on appeal: (1) the lease had expired when the Postal Service attempted to exercise the purchase option because he had not received notice that the government was exercising its final option to renew the lease; (2) even if the lease was renewed, the Postal Service did not properly exercise the purchase option because it continued to negotiate for a new lease after it purported to exercise the option; and (3) equity precluded enforcement of the purchase option because the Postal Service attempted to use the purchase option as leverage to negotiate a better lease agreement. The Tenth Circuit was not persuaded. The Court found the lease-renewal option was properly exercised when the notice was delivered to the proper address, even though Turley refused to retrieve it. And Turley has presented no legal or equitable doctrine that would forbid a party who exercises (and is bound by) an option to purchase from pursuing an alternative arrangement. View "United States v. Turley" on Justia Law

Lincoln Land Company, LLC (“Lincoln Land”) appealed a district court’s judgment which dismissed Lincoln Land’s complaint. LP Broadband cross-appeals the district court’s denial of LP Broadband’s motion for attorney fees. The dispute arose over LP Broadband’s placement and use of antenna equipment on the rooftop of a grain silo owned by Lincoln Land, but leased to General Mills. General Mills had allowed MicroServ Computer Technologies, Inc., (“MicroServ”) (which merged with LP Broadband in 2013) to utilize the rooftop space on the property since March 2000, in exchange for $50 per month. Lincoln Land subsequently purchased the grain silos and, in 2010, executed a lease agreement with General Mills, which specifically prohibited a sublease of the property without prior written consent from Lincoln Land. Notwithstanding the lease provision, General Mills continued to sublease the rooftop space to LP Broadband. Upon discovering that LP Broadband was using the rooftop space, Lincoln Land filed a complaint against LP Broadband for unjust enrichment. Therein, Lincoln Land argued that it had conferred a benefit to LP Broadband and that it would be inequitable for LP Broadband to retain such a benefit without compensating Lincoln Land. The district court dismissed the complaint after concluding that Lincoln Land failed to establish that it, not General Mills, had conferred the benefit to LP Broadband. Finding no reversible error in the district court judgment, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lincoln Land Co v. LP Broadband" on Justia Law

The oral agreement at issue in this appeal was made in connection with a transaction by which three companies, of which Albert Kanno was the majority shareholder, were sold to two Delaware corporations. The transaction was documented principally by three writings, each of which had an integration clause. A jury found in favor of Kanno and against Marwit Capital Partners II, L.P. (Marwit Capital) and Marwit Partners, LLC (Marwit LLC) on Kanno’s claim for breach of the oral agreement. After the jury rendered its verdict, the trial court concluded the parol evidence rule did not bar Kanno’s breach of contract claim and that the oral agreement was enforceable. Marwit Capital and Marwit LLC (together, Marwit) appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the three written agreements were at most partial integrations, and, therefore, the oral agreement was enforceable if its terms did not directly contradict and were consistent with those three agreements, and the Court found no direct contradiction or inconsistency. View "Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II" on Justia Law

Palmer’s vacant Detroit apartment complex was covered by a Scottsdale fire insurance policy until November 2012. The property was vandalized in February 2012. Palmer reported the loss in October 2013. Scottsdale replied that it was investigating. In November, Palmer sent Scottsdale an itemized Proof of Loss. Scottsdale paid Palmer $150,000 in June 2014. Michigan law provides that losses under any fire insurance policy shall be paid within 30 days after receipt of proof of loss. Palmer requested an appraisal. Scottsdale agreed, noting the claim remained under investigation. Appraisers concluded that Palmer’s actual-cash-value loss was $1,642,796.76. The policy limit was $1,000,000. Scottsdale tendered checks over a period of several months that paid the balance. Palmer requested penalty interest for late payment. Michigan law states that if benefits are not paid on a timely basis, they bear simple interest from a date 60 days after satisfactory proof of loss was received by the insurer at the rate of 12% per annum. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that the penalty-interest claim arose “under the policy” and was barred by the policy’s two-year limitations provision. Palmer did not allege that Scottsdale breached the policy agreement. Scottsdale paid the insured loss and the policy had no time limit for paying a loss, Palmer has no unvindicated rights and no claim “under the policy” to assert. His claim is under the statute. View "Palmer Park Square, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After the Garcias bought their Lake Station Property in 2004, it was used as an automobile repair shop and a day spa. It previously was used as a dry cleaning facility and contained six underground storage tanks: four were used for petroleum-based Stoddard solvent, one was used for gasoline, and the last for heating oil. In 1999, the dry cleaning company reported a leak from the Stoddard tanks to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). In 2000, a site investigation was conducted and five groundwater monitoring wells were installed. IDEM requested additional information and testing in 2001 and 2004. The Garcias claim they had no knowledge of the preexisting environmental contamination before insuring with Atlantic. A 2014 letter from Environmental Inc. brought the contamination to the Garcias’ attention. The Garcias hired Environmental to investigate and learned that Perchloroethylene solvent and heating oil still affected the property. Atlantic obtained a declaration that its Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) policies did not apply. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reading a “Claims in Process” exclusion to preclude coverage for losses or claims for damages arising out of property damage—known or unknown—that occurred or was in the process of occurring before the policy’s inception. View "Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of fiduciary duty action against defendants under Family Code section 1101, seeking return of a condominium that she claims to have purchased with her deceased husband and transferred to him so that he could obtain a more favorable loan. The Court of Appeal held that the Legislature's specific treatment of the statute of limitations in section 1101, subdivision (d) governs instead of the general statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure sections 366.2 and 366.3. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's decision sustaining without leave to amend defendants' demurrer so that plaintiff may pursue her cause of action arising under section 1101. View "Yeh v. Tai" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases stemming from the sale and purchase of a partnership interest, SP appealed from a judgment of dismissal following the granting of the trial court's own motion for judgment on the pleadings in SP's breach of contract and conversion action against defendant. SP also appealed from the post-judgment order granting defendant his contractual attorney fees. The Court of Appeal held that SP adequately stated causes of action for breach of contract and conversion and reversed the judgment. In this case, even if the Necessary Approvals were legally required to effectuate a transfer of the Partnership Interest, SP's failure to obtain them was not fatal to its breach of contract claim. Furthermore, SP's conversion claim was not a generalized claim for money but rather a claim for a specific identifiable sum of money received by defendant for SP's benefit. Finally, the court reversed the order awarding fees. View "SP Investment Fund I LLC v. Cattell" on Justia Law

This case arose from an employment agreement between Allen Nettleton and Canyon Outdoor Media, LLC (“Canyon Outdoor”). The parties disagreed with respect to Nettleton’s entitlement to commission wages following his resignation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nettleton and denied Canyon Outdoor’s motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration of the rulings on summary judgment. Canyon Outdoor argued the district court erred in granting Nettleton’s motion for summary judgment: (1) because the parties did not agree to a term in the employment agreement that covers post-separation compensation; (2) because the Snake River Dental contract did not establish a “course of dealing”; and (3) because Nettleton was required to service client accounts to be entitled to commission wages. Among these, the third argument was essentially a dispositive issue in the summary judgment rulings at the district court. For these reasons, Canyon Outdoor contended the district court improperly applied the relevant standard of review in reaching its conclusion that a servicing requirement did not exist under the employment agreement. The Idaho Supreme Court agreed with Canyon Outdoor and found the judgment in favor of Nettleton had to be vacated. View "Nettleton v. Canyon Outdoor Media" on Justia Law

Nelson, Schultz, and Rodgers formed an LLC to develop a mixed‐use luxury skyscraper on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. The LLC’s operating agreement provided that development fees would be divided among the LLC’s managers “as they mutually agree” and that a manager of the LLC could be removed for cause by a majority vote of its owners. In 2005, Rodgers and Schultz voted to remove Nelson, allegedly causing him a loss of $1.13 million on the Ritz‐Carlton Residences. Nelson sued for breach of contract and torts. During discovery Schultz and Rodgers asked Nelson to produce bank statements and tax returns, which, they said, they needed to defend against his claims. After Nelson refused, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to compel their production and warned Nelson, twice, that it would dismiss the case if he did not produce the documents or provide an affidavit documenting a diligent search for them. Nelson did neither. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case for want of prosecution, rejecting an argument that the district judge erred by not assessing whether his misconduct justified dismissing the case. The judge sufficiently evaluated the matter and did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the suit after multiple warnings. View "Nelson v. Schultz" on Justia Law