Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Daniel Flickinger, a litigator at Wainwright, Pope & McMeekin, P.C. (WPM), posted conservative commentary on his personal social media, including a controversial post about George Floyd. Lawrence Tracy King, a partner at King Simmons Ford & Spree, P.C., sent a screenshot of Flickinger’s post—paired with a professional photo from WPM’s website—to WPM partners, expressing concern about the post’s impact on the firm’s reputation. The WPM partners, after reviewing Flickinger’s social media activity and discussing with King, asked Flickinger to resign, which he did. Flickinger alleged that the screenshot misrepresented his post as being made in his professional capacity and falsely associated his views with WPM.Flickinger sued King and the King law firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed all claims, but the Supreme Court of Alabama previously reinstated the tortious interference claim, remanding for further proceedings. On remand, the King defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from WPM partners stating their decision to terminate Flickinger was based solely on their independent review of his public posts, not on King’s actions. Flickinger sought to compel production of King’s cell phone records and to continue the summary judgment hearing, but the circuit court denied both motions and granted summary judgment for the King defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact on causation.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for the King law firm, holding King’s actions were outside the scope of his employment and did not benefit the firm. However, the Court reversed summary judgment for King, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding causation and justification. The case was remanded for further proceedings against King, while the denial of Flickinger’s discovery and continuance motions was affirmed. View "Flickinger v. King" on Justia Law

Bradley Lewis, acting on behalf of iWTNS, Inc. and Leveraged, LLC, entered into a contract with MotionMobs, LLC to develop a mobile-phone application intended to help users contact legal counsel during police stops. The contract specified a timeline and an hourly billing rate. Disputes arose regarding payment and the quality of the delivered product, leading MotionMobs to file a breach-of-contract suit against Lewis and the companies in the Jefferson Circuit Court. During litigation, Lewis and MotionMobs’ CEO exchanged text messages discussing a possible settlement, with Lewis proposing a payment schedule and MotionMobs responding with additional terms.The Jefferson Circuit Court reviewed MotionMobs’ motion to enforce the text-message exchange as a binding settlement agreement. The court found that the parties had entered into a valid agreement based on the text messages and ordered them to execute a written agreement reflecting those terms. The defendants sought relief from this order, which was denied, and MotionMobs moved to hold them in contempt for noncompliance. After procedural developments, including an initial dismissal of an appeal for lack of a final order, the circuit court entered a final judgment, prompting a timely appeal by the defendants.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the text-message exchange constituted a binding settlement agreement. The Court held that the exchange did not create an enforceable contract because MotionMobs’ response was a counteroffer containing indefinite terms that were never accepted by the defendants. The Court emphasized that a valid contract requires definite material terms and mutual assent, which were lacking in this instance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "iWTNS, Inc. v. MotionMobs, LLC" on Justia Law

After a storm damaged a warehouse owned by Distribution, Inc., D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. performed a free inspection and damage report. The parties entered into a written agreement stating that D&M would perform repair work approved by Distribution’s insurer, with the contract price to equal the total claim amount agreed to by the insurer. The agreement included a cancellation fee provision, stating that if Distribution did not engage D&M to complete the building after insurance approval, Distribution would pay D&M a fee equal to 20% of the proceeds paid by the insurer for work done by D&M. Distribution ultimately hired a different contractor for the repairs, and D&M sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The District Court for Lancaster County first found the contract enforceable and that Distribution had breached it, but determined D&M was not entitled to damages under the cancellation fee provision because D&M had performed no repair work. The court also granted summary judgment to Distribution on the unjust enrichment claim. In subsequent summary judgment proceedings, D&M attempted to pursue an alternative theory of damages, but the district court refused to consider it, relying on D&M’s earlier concession that its damages were limited to those under the cancellation fee provision. The district court later issued a final order dismissing D&M’s claims in full.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that D&M was not entitled to damages under the cancellation fee provision, as the contract unambiguously limited the fee to work actually performed by D&M. The court further held that D&M was precluded from seeking other damages due to its earlier concession, applying the invited error doctrine. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "D & M Roofing & Siding, Inc. v. Distribution, Inc." on Justia Law

A waste hauling company operating in Kansas City brought suit against a mobile waste compaction business and its franchisor. The waste hauler owns containers that are leased to customers, who sometimes contract separately with the compaction company to compress waste inside those containers. The hauler alleged that the compaction company’s activities damaged its containers and interfered with its business relationships. The hauler sought various forms of relief, including damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and nominal damages, but ultimately disavowed any claim for actual monetary damages, citing a lack of evidence to support such damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the hauler’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding no irreparable harm. During discovery, the hauler admitted it could not identify or quantify any actual damages and stipulated it was not seeking damages outside Kansas City. The district court granted the compaction company’s motion to strike the hauler’s jury demand, holding that the hauler had not presented evidence of compensatory damages, that nominal damages were unavailable under Missouri law for the claims asserted, and that the remaining claims were equitable in nature. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the compaction company and its franchisor, finding the hauler failed to prove essential elements of its claims, including actual damages and direct benefit conferred for unjust enrichment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the hauler was not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment because it failed to present evidence of compensatory damages and nominal damages were not available for its claims under Missouri law. The court also affirmed judgment for the compaction company on the trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment claims, finding the hauler failed to prove dispossession, damages, or a direct benefit conferred. View "Allied Services v. Smash My Trash, LLC" on Justia Law

A state-operated university in South Dakota, facing increased demand for student housing, entered into a series of lease agreements with a local housing commission beginning in 2000. The commission constructed and financed two apartment buildings, leasing them to the university with an option for the university to purchase the property. The original 2000 lease included a provision for a reserve account, funded by any excess between actual debt service and lease payments, which would be disbursed to the university if it exercised its purchase option. Over the years, the parties executed new leases in 2011, 2014, and 2017, each with different terms and none referencing the reserve account provision from the 2000 lease. In 2020, the university notified the commission of its intent to purchase the property, leading to disputes over the purchase price and whether the university was entitled to a credit from a reserve account that no longer existed.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Lake County, South Dakota, granted partial summary judgment in favor of the university, holding that all the leases should be read as a single, continuous contract, thereby extending the reserve account obligation from the 2000 lease into subsequent agreements. The court also interpreted the purchase price provision to refer to the original construction mortgage, not any refinanced debt, and determined the university was entitled to a refund after calculating the buy-out amount. The commission’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and final judgment was entered for the university.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed and remanded. It held that the leases were separate agreements, not a single continuous contract, and that the reserve account obligation from the 2000 lease did not carry forward. The court further held that the buy-out price should be based on the balance of the mortgage existing at the time the purchase option was exercised, including any refinanced debt, not just the original mortgage. The circuit court’s judgment was vacated. View "S.D. Board Of Regents v. Madison Housing" on Justia Law

Several individuals and an LLC, who own oil and gas interests in West Virginia, leased their mineral rights to EQT, a group of related energy companies. The leases, numbering nearly 3,843, required EQT to pay royalties to the lessors. During the period from January 1, 2012, to February 28, 2021, EQT extracted “wet gas” from the wells, which contains valuable natural gas liquids (NGLs) like propane and butane. EQT sold the wet gas at the wellhead to its own affiliates and paid royalties to the lessors based on the energy content (BTU) of the wet gas, not on the value of the NGLs. EQT then separated and sold the NGLs to third parties but did not pay additional royalties for these sales. In 2021, EQT notified lessors it would begin calculating royalties based on the separate value of NGLs and residue gas.The plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent concealment, and sought class certification. The district court granted partial summary judgment, finding EQT’s affiliates were its alter egos, and certified classes for both claims, later dividing the class into three subclasses based on lease language. EQT petitioned for interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s certification order. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the certification of the breach of contract claim, holding that the class was ascertainable and that common questions of law and fact predominated, given EQT’s uniform royalty payment method and the immateriality of lease language variations under West Virginia law. However, the Fourth Circuit reversed the certification of the fraudulent concealment claim, holding that individual questions of reliance would predominate, making class treatment inappropriate for that claim. Thus, the district court’s order was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Glover v. EQT Corporation" on Justia Law

Several former members of the rock band Supertramp entered into a 1977 publishing agreement with their bandmates and manager, allocating specific percentages of songwriting royalties among themselves. These royalties were distributed according to the agreement for decades. In 2018, two of the principal songwriters and their publishing company stopped paying royalties to the plaintiffs, prompting the plaintiffs to file a breach of contract action. The dispute centered on whether the agreement could be unilaterally terminated or whether the obligation to pay royalties continued as long as the songs generated income.After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the court ruled as a matter of law that the defendants could terminate the agreement after a “reasonable time,” finding no express or implied duration in the contract. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which found in favor of the defendants, concluding that the contract had been terminated after a reasonable time. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and applied California contract law, which requires courts to first look for an express duration in the contract, then to determine if a duration can be implied from the contract’s nature and circumstances, and only if neither is found, to construe the duration as a reasonable time. The Ninth Circuit agreed there was no express duration but held that the contract’s nature implied a duration: the obligation to pay royalties continues as long as the songs generate publishing income, ending only when the copyrights expire and the works enter the public domain. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs on liability. View "Thompson v. Hodgson" on Justia Law

A business owner, who held a 50% stake in a group of skilled-nursing and real estate companies, personally guaranteed a $77 million loan arranged by a bank for those companies and others managed by his business partner. The loan was part of a refinancing effort after the companies’ prior lender declared a default. The owner signed both an initial guaranty agreement and a subsequent reaffirmation of that guaranty. Within a year, the companies defaulted on the new loan, and it was later revealed that the business partner had engaged in fraudulent check-kiting. The bank demanded repayment from the guarantors, including the owner, who then argued that he had been fraudulently induced into signing the guaranty because the bank failed to disclose material financial risks related to his partner and the companies.The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to the bank, finding that the owner had waived defenses under the guaranty agreement, that the bank owed no duty to disclose information about the companies’ financial condition, and that the owner could not establish fraudulent inducement. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that as a surety, the owner could assert a defense based on the bank’s alleged failure to disclose facts that materially increased his risk, adopting the “doctrine of increased risk” from Section 124(1) of the Restatement (First) of Security.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The court held that, under Ohio law, parties to an arm’s-length transaction do not owe each other a duty to disclose unknown facts that materially increase risk, unless a special relationship of trust or confidence exists. This rule applies regardless of whether one party is a guarantor or surety. The court reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. View "Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider" on Justia Law

A married couple, who wed in 2020 and share a young child, purchased an engineering business together using loans secured by the wife’s premarital home. After their separation in 2023, the wife petitioned for divorce. The parties entered into interim agreements regarding custody, child support, and business management, but the husband repeatedly violated these orders by failing to make required payments, misusing business funds, and withholding financial disclosures. The wife raised concerns about the husband’s substance abuse and erratic behavior, providing evidence of his alcohol and marijuana use, as well as incidents of intoxication during child exchanges and at work. The husband denied these allegations but admitted to some problematic behavior in written communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held multiple hearings, finding the husband in contempt several times for violating court orders. At trial, the court heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the husband’s parenting, financial conduct, and the parties’ competing proposals for the business. The court found the wife more credible, sanctioned the husband for discovery violations, and ultimately awarded her primary custody of the child, with the husband’s parenting time to be phased in only after he completed chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. The court also awarded the wife sole ownership of the business and her premarital home, requiring her to assume all related debts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that the finding regarding the husband’s failure to make full financial disclosures was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in conditioning the husband’s parenting time on completion of evaluations or in awarding the business to the wife, as these decisions were equitable and consistent with Montana law. View "In re Marriage of Boeshans" on Justia Law

Russell Johnson, a resident of a continuing care retirement community operated by Stoneridge Creek, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Stoneridge Creek unlawfully increased residents’ monthly care fees to cover its anticipated legal defense costs in ongoing litigation. Johnson claimed these increases violated several statutes, including the Health and Safety Code, the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Elder Abuse Act, and breached the Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) between residents and Stoneridge Creek. The RCA allowed Stoneridge Creek to adjust monthly fees based on projected costs, prior year per capita costs, and economic indicators. In recent years, Stoneridge Creek’s budgets for legal fees rose sharply, with $500,000 allocated for 2023 and 2024, compared to much lower amounts in prior years.The Alameda County Superior Court previously denied Stoneridge Creek’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the RCA’s arbitration provision unconscionable. Johnson then moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Stoneridge Creek from including its litigation defense costs in monthly fee increases. The trial court granted the injunction, finding a likelihood of success on Johnson’s claims under the CLRA and UCL, and determined that the fee increases were retaliatory and unlawfully shifted defense costs to residents. The court also ordered Johnson to post a $1,000 bond.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the fee increases did not violate the CLRA’s fee-recovery provision or other litigation fee-shifting statutes, as these statutes govern judicial awards of fees, not how a defendant funds its own legal expenses. The court further concluded that Health and Safety Code section 1788(a)(22)(B) permits Stoneridge Creek to include reasonable projections of litigation expenses in monthly fees. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider whether the fee increases were retaliatory or excessive, and to reassess the balance of harms and the appropriate bond amount. View "Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC" on Justia Law