Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Myron Yarbrough appealed a circuit court judgment entered against him in his action alleging legal malpractice against Steven Eversole, Richard Perry, Jr., and Eversole Law, LLC ("the firm"). In 2006, Yarbrough was convicted of one count of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sodomy. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for each conviction and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Yarbrough appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished memorandum. At the time of the events giving rise to Yarbrough's cause of action, the firm employed both Eversole and Perry. In March 2012, Yarbrough retained the firm to explore the possibility of filing a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition on Yarbrough's behalf. Yarbrough alleged that Eversole and Perry represented to Yarbrough that "there was a basis in fact and law to file a Rule 32 petition." Yarbrough asserted, however, that the two attorneys "knew that there was no 'newly discovered' evidence as defined by Alabama case law and that the statute of limitations would be a complete bar to all claims of newly discovered evidence and for the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel." Yarbrough paid the firm $10,000 to file a Rule 32 petition on his behalf. The claims in that Rule 32 petition were ultimately denied as time-barred. Yarbrough filed this legal malpractice action against the firm, alleging that they misrepresented his chances of success in the Rule 32 petition. After review, the Supreme Court found that circuit court erred in concluding that Yarbrough's legal-malpractice action against the firm and Eversole failed as a matter of law. However, there existed a plain dispute of fact as to what Eversole told Yarbrough about the prospects of a Rule 32 petition and the subsequent appellate filings. Therefore, a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the firm and Eversole was not warranted. The summary judgment in favor of Perry was affirmed, but the judgment on the pleadings in favor of the firm and Eversole was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Yarbrough v. Eversole" on Justia Law

In 2003, Mid America Ag Network, Inc. (MAAN, Inc.) and Journal Broadcast Group of Kansas, Inc. (JBGK) entered into a settlement agreement governing dealings between the companies. The agreement contained a clause stating that neither party shall assign the agreement without prior written consent of the other party. In 2005, MAAN, Inc. allegedly sold the agreement and its right to do business under the MAAN name to Steckline Communications, Inc. (SCI) without JBGK’s consent. SCI and JBGK continued to do business with each other pursuant to the agreement’s terms until 2012. That year SCI sued JBGK for breaching the agreement. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that SCI lacked standing because it was not a party to the contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting JBGK’s motion to dismiss because SCI set forth a colorable claim that JBGK was equitably estopped from asserting that SCI lacked standing on the grounds of an inadequate assignment. Remanded. View "Steckline Communications, Inc. v. Journal Broadcast Group of Kansas, Inc." on Justia Law

M.C., a gestational carrier, challenges the trial court's declaration that Father is the sole legal parent of triplet children and finding that M.C. has no parental rights. M.C. entered into the surrogacy arrangement with Father, pursuant to a written “In Vitro Fertilization Surrogacy Agreement.” As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that M.C. is not estopped from challenging the legal effect or validity of the Agreement. On the merits, the court concluded that Father complied with the requirements for establishing a parent-child relationship and for terminating M.C.’s claimed parental rights pursuant to Family Code section 7962. The court also concluded that the trial court's application of section 7962 is consistent with the constitutional rights of M.C. and the children. In this case, M.C.'s various substantive and procedural challenges are foreclosed by specific legislative provisions and by a prior decision by the California Supreme Court. Because the court found no error in the trial court's ruling, the court affirmed the judgment. View "C.M. v. M.C." on Justia Law

In 1994, Petitioner filed this lawsuit against his brother and nephew (together, Respondents) alleging claims resulting from deteriorating business relationships within the family. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, and mistrial was declared. Petitioner’s subsequent amendments to his complaint culminated in a fifth amended complaint filed in 2009. The jury found in favor of Petitioner on all three counts he alleged. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that Respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence did not support any of Petitioner’s claims. The district court also reversed on the grounds that Petitioenr’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, as the fifth amended complaint did not relate back to the original. The Supreme Court quashed the Third District’s decision, holding (1) an amendment asserting a new cause of action can relate back to the original pleading where the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on Petitioner’s breach of oral promise claim. Remanded. View "Kopel v. Kopel" on Justia Law

Orthopedic Specialists and various medical service providers challenged reimbursements made by Allstate Insurance Company under personal injury protection no-fault insurance policies issued to Allstate’s insureds, arguing that Allstate’s policy was ambiguous as to whether Allstate had elected to reimburse the Providers in accordance with the Medicare fee schedules provided for in Fla. Stat. 627.736(5)(a)2. The Fourth District held that the policy language was not legally sufficient to authorize Allstate to apply the Medicare fee schedules. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District and approved the decision of the First District in Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, P.A., holding that Allstate’s insurance policy provides legally sufficient notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2 to limit reimbursements. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists" on Justia Law

Natalie Heslop overdosed on prescription drugs. The next day, Natalie rolled her truck down an embankment. Natalie informed the responding police officer, medical personnel, her family, and an insurance adjuster that the accident had been a suicide attempt. Natalie’s insurance policy provided that it would exclude coverage to any injured person “if the person’s conduct contributed to his injury…by intentionally causing injury to himself.” Natalie and her husband, Brandon Heslop, attempted to collect from Bear River Mutual Insurance Company under both a personal injury protection claim for Natalie’s personal injuries and a property damage claim for damage to the truck. Bear River denied the claims based on Natalie's admission that she intended to drive down the embankment. The Heslops subsequently filed a complaint against Bear River. The district court granted summary judgment to Bear River as to both the personal injury claim and the property damage claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Heslops’ claims. View "Heslop v. Bear River Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, Nappa Construction Management, LLC (Nappa) and Caroline and Vincent Flynn (the Flynns) entered into a contract for a commercial construction project. Service Insurance Company, Inc. (Service Insurance) furnished a performance bond on the contract. In 2013, the Flynns directed Nappa to stop work on the project. Nappa subsequently submitted an application for payment, which the Flynns declined to pay. Nappa then terminated the contract due to nonpayment. The Flynns filed an action alleging that Nappa had wrongfully terminated the contract. Nappa filed a demand for arbitration in accordance with an arbitration provision in the contract and also named Service Insurance as a party to the arbitration. The arbitrator found that Nappa was not justified in terminating the contract but concluded that, under the termination-for-convenience clause in the contract, neither Nappa nor the Flynns were in breach of the contract. The arbitrator awarded Nappa $37,980. The superior court granted Nappa’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in holding that the contract was terminated for convenience. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the contract. View "Nappa Construction Management, LLC v. Flynn" on Justia Law

Cardi Corporation contracted with the State to construct a portion of a highway construction project dealing with Interstate 195 in Rhode Island (I-Way Project). Cardi subcontracted with High Steel to supply steel for the project. Asserting that it was never paid for 182,873 pounds of temporary steel bracing, High Steel brought suit against Cardi. In response, Cardi filed a third-party action for breach of contract against the State. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on the third-party suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract was clear and unambiguous and did not require payment for temporary bracing steel. View "High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Cardi Corp. v. State" on Justia Law

This suit arose from the actions of iStar’s Board of Directors in modifying performance-based executive compensation awards, which were granted in the form of stock. Petitioners filed suit against current and former members of iStar’s Board and senior management, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The circuit court dismissed all of Petitioners’ claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petitioners’ claims were properly dismissed by the circuit court for failure to overcome the business judgment rule presumption; and (2) furthermore, Petitioners’ claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are derivative claims that are subject to the business judgment rule. View "Oliveira v. Sugarman" on Justia Law

Jeremy and Jessica Litster appealed a district court dismissal on summary judgment. The case concerned the enforceability of three promissory notes, which were prepared and issued by Jeremy to Jason Lee , Scott McNab, and a non-party, Rick Lee. In February 2009, Jeremy learned of an "investment opportunity" that required a minimum buy-in of $500,000. Jeremy and Jason solicited close friends and family to "invest" by transferring money to them, which would later be transferred to Jeremy's relative, Marc Jenson. Ultimately, the "investment" failed, and Plaintiffs and other "investors" looked to Jeremy for repayment. Jeremy made payments on these promissory notes. However, in July 2011, Jeremy stopped making payments because he learned that the Idaho Department of Finance had been notified regarding his investment solicitation activity. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Litsters in 2014, alleging three counts of breach of contract for failure to pay the amounts due according to the promissory notes. The Litsters answered asserting, inter alia, the affirmative defense that the notes were issued under duress. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment of the issues of breach of contract and duress. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion. On the issue of duress, the district court found in Plaintiffs' favor under two different legal theories: (1) the Litsters failed to provide sufficient evidence of their claim for duress to create a genuine issue of material fact; and (2) the district court noted that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Jeremy ratified the promissory notes by making payments thereon. It concluded that, in addition to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the Litsters' "claim for duress fails because [Jeremy ] ratified the contracts by making payments on the [n]otes." The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, finding that the Litsters failed to contest the alternate grounds upon which the summary judgment was granted. View "Lee v. Litster" on Justia Law