Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Gerdau leased a locomotive from Titan for use in switching at its Knoxville mill. Titan shipped the locomotive in 2008, but it was damaged in transit and sent for repair. It did not reach Gerdau’s plant until 2009. Gerdau rejected it, stating that it needed further repairs. While the locomotive was being repaired, Titan assigned the lease to Leasing, an affiliated business, which then used the lease as security for a loan from Wells Fargo. The loan is nonrecourse: Wells Fargo agreed to look for repayment exclusively from the stream of rentals expected from Gerdau. Leasing made several warranties. Gerdau has never made a payment on the lease. Wells Fargo has taken control of the locomotive and is attempting to sell it. The district court granted summary judgment against Wells Fargo, ruling that Leasing had kept its promises. The court looked to the lease, and then to the Uniform Commercial Code, to see whether the locomotive had been “accepted” when the lease was assigned. Gerdau had an opportunity and the lease required Gerdau to inspect before shipment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Gerdau did not acknowledge the locomotive’s receipt; Leasing did not live up to its warranties. It must repay Wells Fargo. Titan must perform the guarantees.View "Wells Fargo Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Titan Leasing Inc." on Justia Law

Attorneys Siegel and Weills represented Hernandez in a successful employment discrimination lawsuit in which attorney fees and costs were awarded, pursuant to Government Code section 12965. The total amount of the fee award, plus accrued interest, was paid directly to Siegel’s law firm by the defendant in the litigation. When the interest was not disbursed to her, Hernandez sued Siegel, Weills, and their law firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and intentional torts. The trial court concluded that the attorneys, rather than Hernandez, were entitled to both. Hernandez appeals. The appeals court affirmed, noting language in the fee agreement: you authorize and agree that our outstanding bill for fees and costs must and will be paid from the settlement or judgment in your case, whether or not we are your counsel at the time the matter is finally resolved.View "Hernandez v. Siegel" on Justia Law

In 2010, Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC) filed an "Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" against 122 individuals who were insured under various insurance policies issued by BMIC. According to the complaint, the insureds, through their legal counsel, had sent a letter requesting BMIC provide copies of the policy file for each of the insureds, and the letter accused BMIC of "bad faith" as to its treatment of the insureds. According to BMIC's complaint, the various insurance policies at issue provided that BMIC or an insured could invoke an appraisal process if BMIC and the insured could not reach an agreement as to the amount of compensation due the insured for a loss covered under the insured's policy. BMIC asked that the restraining order "enjoin[] the [insureds] from engaging in the appraisal process and stay[] the time in which [BMIC] has to identify an appraiser or otherwise participate in said process." Also, BMIC asserted that "it will be caused immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage should it be required to engage in the appraisal process demanded prior to determining whether [the insureds] separately and severally are entitled to invoke the appraisal process." BMIC appealed the Circuit Court's order modifying a previous order granting BMIC injunctive relief. Based on its review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred by ordering BMIC to engage in the appraisal process before the insureds satisfied their respective post-loss obligations and before BMIC had sufficient information on which it could decide whether it disagreed with the respective claims of the insureds. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. Adair et al. " on Justia Law

Following a two-day trial in May 2013, a Bullock County jury returned a $450,000 verdict in favor of Michael Shepherd on a breach-of-warranty claim he asserted against Barko Hydraulics, LLC. Shepherd purchased a Barko 495ML knuckle boom loader ("the 495ML loader") from G&S Equipment Company in 2008 for use in his logging operation. In November 2010, when the 495ML loader had approximately 4,300 hours on its clock, Shepherd transported it to G&S Equipment for repairs after the hydraulic pumps began making noise. G&S Equipment confirmed that the hydraulic pumps had failed and notified Shepherd that the needed repairs, costing approximately $10,000, would not be covered under the warranty because the warranty period had expired. At Shepherd's request, G&S Equipment contacted Barko, which confirmed that it would not authorize or reimburse G&S Equipment for making the needed repair because of the expiration of the warranty. At that point, Shepherd told G&S Equipment that he could not afford to pay for the repairs to the 495ML loader, nor could he continue to meet his obligation to Wells Fargo (the bank that lent him the purchase money for the loader). He left the loader with G&S Equipment, notified Wells Fargo of its location, and of his intention to make no further payments on it. Wells Fargo subsequently repossessed the loader, sold it, and obtained a $124,184 deficit judgment against Shepherd. Shepherd then sued Barko, G&S Equipment, and Cummins Mid-South, LLC, the manufacturer of certain component parts of the 495ML loader, asserting fraud, negligence and/or wantonness, and multiple breach-of-warranty claims. Shepherd sought both compensatory damages for lost profits and mental anguish and punitive damages. Ultimately, G&S Equipment and Cummins Mid-South were dismissed from the action, and, during the course of the trial, all of Shepherd's claims against Barko except a breach-of-express-warranty claim were withdrawn or dismissed. Barko's subsequent postjudgment motion renewing its previous motion for a judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial was denied by the trial court. Barko then appealed to the Supreme Court. After review, the Court concluded the trial court erred in not granting Barko's postjudgment motions. The case was remanded for entry of an order granting Barko's motion for a new trial. View "Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Shepherd " on Justia Law

The Practice-Monroeville, P.C., is a medical-practice group located in Monroeville. Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, based in North Carolina with no Alabama offices, sells health-care software to health-care providers. Jackson Key Practice Solutions, LLC is a certified "sales-and-service partner" of Allscripts, selling and servicing Allscripts software, and Anderton is an employee and partial owner of Jackson Key. In May 2011, the Practice and Allscripts entered into a written contract in which the Practice purchased health-care software called "MyWay" from Allscripts through Jackson Key. The contract contained an arbitration provision, which stated in pertinent part: "Any dispute or claim arising out of, or in connection with, this Agreement shall be finally settled by binding arbitration in Raleigh, NC, in accordance with the then-current rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association ...." The Practice became dissatisfied with the performance of the MyWay software and unsuccessfully attempted to cancel its contract with Allscripts. The Practice sued Jackson Key and Anderton, but not Allscripts, in circuit court. Jackson Key and Anderton moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the contract. Anderton and Jackson Key appealed the Circuit Court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration. After review, the Supreme Court found the circuit court erred in its decision, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Anderton v. The Practice-Monroeville, P.C. " on Justia Law

In this case, Beverly Maeker and William Ross, although unmarried to each other, lived together and shared a marital-like relationship from 1999 to 2011. In the course of that relationship, Maeker alleged she gave up a career and devoted herself to Ross, who promised to support her in the future. In short, Maeker claimed that the two entered into a palimony agreement. In 2011, their relationship dissolved, and Maeker filed an action to enforce Ross's promise to provide financial support. Ross argued that the alleged agreement was not reduced to writing and could not be enforced under the 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds. The trial court rejected Ross's argument, concluding that the Legislature intended the 2010 Amendment to be prospectively applied. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed Maeker's complaint, holding that the Legislature intended that any palimony agreement as of 2010 had to be in writing and that oral agreements predating the Amendment were no longer enforceable. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division, finding that the Legislature did not intend the 2010 Amendment to apply retroactively to oral agreements that predated the Amendment. "In amending the Statute of Frauds, the Legislature was aware that historically the Statute has been construed -- absent a legislative expression to the contrary -- not to reach back to rescind preexisting, lawfully enforceable oral agreements. The Legislature has given no indication that it intended to depart from the traditional prospective application of a change to the Statute." Accordingly, the Appellate Division was reversed and Maeker’s complaint reinstated. View "Maeker v. Ross" on Justia Law

Tommy Sundy petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss third-party claims asserted against him by accounting firm Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC ("FCT"). Adams Produce Company, Inc. ("APCI"), purchased Crestview Produce of Destin, Inc., from Sundy. As part of the transaction, APCI and Sundy executed a promissory note in the amount of $850,000, and Sundy became an employee of APCI. FCT alleges that, based on representations from APCI and Sundy, certain budget and bonus projections were set for APCI, but those goals were not met. Because of that failure, Sundy was not entitled to bonuses that had been paid to him throughout 2009. With the alleged help and direction of FCT, APCI recharacterized the bonuses as repayments of principal on the promissory note. The nonpayment of certain amounts to Sundy in the context of this action effectively increased APCI's income and decreased its indebtedness. APCI also allegedly entered into an oral, undocumented agreement with Sundy stipulating that it would make him whole in future years for the forfeited bonus payments. In 2009, APCI's shareholders decided to sell the company to API Holdings, LLC. API Holdings alleges that it discovered that, contrary to representations made by FCT in an audit report, APCI's financial statements were fraudulent, causing API Holdings to believe that APC was worth more than it actually was. API Holdings sued FCT asserting claims of negligent misrepresentation, auditing malpractice, fraud, and other claims of professional malfeasance. Among several other claims, API Holdings alleged that FCT had failed to uncover misrepresentations by Sundy and APCI and that FCT had acted fraudulently in confirming the recharacterization of Sundy's bonuses as payments on principal of the promissory note. A few months later, APC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. APC filed an adversarial complaint in FCT's bankruptcy case, alleging that FCT's audit work had painted a false financial picture of APC upon which APC had relied in continuing to operate its business even after reaching the point of insolvency. FCT filed a third-party complaint with the bankruptcy court against Sundy and others. FCT's complaint alleged various theories under Alabama law as bases for FCT to "recover over" against Sundy. Sundy subsequently moved to dismiss FCT's third-party complaint on the basis of 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, Alabama's abatement statute. The circuit court denied the motion, and Sundy then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the Supreme Court direct the circuit court to vacate its judgment denying his motion to dismiss and to order the circuit court to dismiss FCT's claims against Sundy asserted in its third-party complaint at circuit court. The Supreme Court concluded that FCT's third-party claims against Sundy were not barred by the abatement statute. The circuit court properly declined to dismiss those claims. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: API Holdings, LLC v. Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Debtors contracted with Builder to finish construction on a house. After Debtors defaulted on progress payments, Builder sued Debtors and Bank, claiming that Defendants falsely represented or concealed material information about whether Debtors could pay for the work. The district court sustained Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Builder’s fraud and conspiracy claims. Debtors then confessed judgment on Builder’s breach of contract claim. After a bench trial, the district court ruled for Defendants on Builder’s equitable and promissory estoppel claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the court erred in granting summary judgment to Debtors on Builder’s fraud claim and to Debtors and Bank on Builder’s civil conspiracy claim; and (2) during trial, the court did not err in finding that Builder had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Bank promised to fund Builder’s work that was definite enough to induce Builder’s foreseeable reliance on the statement, but these factual findings did not preclude Builder’s proof of the same facts for its fraud claims. Remanded.View "deNourie & Youst Homes, LLC v. Frost" on Justia Law

Rita Sue Rasnic, (f/k/a Johnson) appealed the grant of summary judgment quieting title to disputed mineral interests in McKenzie County to Norris and Beverly Hildre. Rasnic argues she was entitled to the disputed mineral interests because those mineral interests were subject to a mortgage held by her predecessor in interest, American State Bank. Upon review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the plain language of the Hildres' 1988 mortgage applied only to mineral interests owned by them when the mortgage was executed and title to the disputed mineral interests, which was acquired by the Hildres after the mortgage was executed, did not inure to American State Bank as security for the Hildres' debt under N.D.C.C. section 35-03-01.2(4). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the disputed mineral interests to the Hildres. View "Rasnic v. ConocoPhillips Co." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a contract with Appellee specifying that Appellee would provide Appellant with software development services. Appellant later terminated the parties’ contract based on its alleged belief that three separate provisions of the parties’ agreement entitled it to terminate the contract. Appellee filed this breach-of-contract action against Appellant. Appellant counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relationship or business expectancy. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee and awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages. Appellant appealed the judgment and Appellee cross-appealed from the circuit court’s postjudgment denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal and reversed and on cross-appeal, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the jury’s breach-of-contract verdict; and (2) because the circuit court did not adequately explain its denial of attorneys’ fees, the case must be remanded for the limited purpose of making findings to allow for appellate review of the fee decision. View "Ark. Realtors Ass'n v. Real Forms LLC" on Justia Law