Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves East Central Water District ("East Central") and the City of Grand Forks ("City"). East Central alleged that the City unlawfully curtailed its water service area, violating federal and state laws. East Central sought to declare a water supply and service agreement with the City void from the beginning under a specific North Dakota statute. The agreement, entered into in 2000, was designed to avoid conflict in providing potable water as the City annexed territory in East Central's service area. The agreement was subject to a North Dakota statute that required the public lending authority to be a party to the agreement. However, the Bank of North Dakota, the public lending authority, was not a party to the agreement.The case was initially brought before the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The City answered East Central’s complaint and counterclaimed, and brought a third-party complaint against William Brudvik and Ohnstad Twichell, P.C. for legal malpractice in their representation of the City during negotiations and execution of the Agreement. The City then moved the federal district court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of North Dakota on the interpretation of the North Dakota statute.The Supreme Court of North Dakota was asked to answer two certified questions of law: whether the language “invalid and unenforceable” in the North Dakota statute means an agreement made without the public lending authority as a party is (1) void from the beginning or (2) voidable and capable of ratification. The court concluded that the language “invalid and unenforceable” means void from the beginning, and does not mean voidable and capable of ratification. The court reasoned that the statute speaks to the authority to contract on this subject matter, as opposed to the manner or means of exercising one’s power to contract. Therefore, none of the parties were authorized to contract for water services without the public lending authority being a party to the agreement. View "East Central Water District v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mary Roth and Gary Meyer, who were in a relationship and cohabitated from 2002 to 2022. They shared a bank account and ran an intermingled cattle herd. The dispute arose over the ownership of a property and cattle, and the enforcement of oral loan agreements. The property in question was initially owned by Anthony and Jean Ehrmantrout, who transferred it to each other in 1994. After their deaths in 2001, the property was distributed to their grandchildren, Chet, Carlos, and Marty Meyer, as co-trustees of the Jean Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust. In 2004, Marty Meyer transferred his interest in the property to Gary Meyer. In 2010, Gary Meyer transferred his interest in the property to Mary Roth.The District Court found that Gary Meyer had gained ownership of the property through adverse possession and had valid title when he transferred it to Mary Roth in 2010. The court also found that Gary Meyer had converted 13 of Mary Roth's cattle and breached oral loan agreements with her, awarding her damages. Both parties appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had erred in finding that Gary Meyer had gained ownership of the property through adverse possession. The Supreme Court also found that the District Court had erred in admitting certain evidence, in failing to determine when the alleged conversion of cattle began, in valuing the converted cattle, and in finding that Gary Meyer owed on loan contracts that were unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Roth v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The case involves North Farm Home Owners Association, Inc. (North Farm) and the Bristol County Water Authority (BCWA). North Farm, a multi-building condominium complex in Bristol, Rhode Island, had granted several easements to BCWA, a public utility responsible for providing water to residential and commercial customers in Bristol County. From 1975 to 1995, BCWA measured water service to each condominium unit individually. However, between 1993 and 1995, representatives of the parties discussed converting the individual meter system to a centralized, master meter system. This correspondence is at the heart of the dispute.The Superior Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of BCWA on counts three and four of North Farm's third amended complaint. North Farm appealed, arguing that a valid contract was formed through their 1993–1995 correspondence, that the hearing justice ignored allegations that the 2019 pass-through rate was illegal, and that the hearing justice denied North Farm’s motion to amend without a finding of prejudice.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that the 1993–1995 correspondence did not establish the existence of a contract as a matter of law. The court held that the letters did not show the parties’ mutual assent to the material contract terms by means of offer and acceptance. The court also found that North Farm failed to produce sufficient evidence that a valid contract for the material terms existed. Therefore, the hearing justice’s grant of summary judgment on count three of the third amended complaint was proper. The court also affirmed the hearing justice's grant of summary judgment on count four, as North Farm did not properly plead any basis for granting injunctive or compensatory relief due to BCWA’s purported unlawful discrimination. View "North Farm Home Owners Association, Inc. v. Bristol County Water Authority" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the will of the late Donelson C. Glassie. The plaintiff, Marcia Sallum Glassie, is the testator’s former wife. She appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Paul Doucette, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie. The Superior Court affirmed an order of the Newport Probate Court denying the plaintiff’s petition for leave to file a claim out of time against the estate. The denied claim would have alleged a breach of contract, based on the plaintiff’s contention that a key provision of the testator’s will violated the terms of the couple’s property-settlement agreement.The plaintiff and the testator were married in 1986, had three children, and were divorced in 1993. According to their property-settlement agreement (PSA), the testator was to execute a will that would not only treat his obligations under the PSA as “a claim against any assets in [his] [e]state” but also “specifically bequest to [plaintiff] an amount equal to said obligations.” A dispute soon unfolded over what the PSA required of the testator’s will.In 2017, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the Superior Court judgment on multiple grounds. Relevant to the present appeal, the court determined “that the disputed provision in the will is ambiguous” because it “does not clearly specify under what circumstances plaintiff is to receive the sum of $2,000,000 or the circumstances under which she is to receive such other amount necessary to satisfy all of [the testator’s] remaining obligations.” Because “a proper resolution of this matter require[d] factfinding and conclusions of law with respect to [the] testator’s intent,” the court remanded the case to the Superior Court.Back in Superior Court, the plaintiff sought to amend her complaint with a claim for breach of contract. The Superior Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, in part because she did not first submit the claim to the probate court, and also because the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition in the Newport Probate Court for leave to file a claim out of time and, after the court denied her petition, she appealed that denial to the Superior Court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim for breach of contract was not due to excusable neglect and, therefore, her claim must be denied. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between the University of Rhode Island Board of Trustees and the University of Rhode Island (plaintiffs) and the Hellenic Society Paideia – Rhode Island Chapter (defendant). The dispute arose from a breach-of-contract related to the construction of a Center for Hellenic Studies at the University of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs and defendant had entered into a Ground Lease Agreement that established the parameters for this construction project. The defendant failed to construct the Center for Hellenic Studies within the agreed timeframe, leading to litigation.The Superior Court stayed the litigation pending arbitration, as per the mandate. The arbitration proceedings were held, and the arbitrator issued a decision. The arbitrator found that the defendant had breached the lease agreement by failing to construct the Center for Hellenic Studies within the requisite timeframe, among other failures. The arbitrator also determined that a joint venture did not exist between the parties. The arbitrator directed the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs for the cost and expenses that they will incur in their efforts to restore the construction site to its prior status.The plaintiffs filed a motion in Superior Court to confirm the arbitration award, which the defendant objected to and cross-moved to vacate. The trial justice granted the plaintiffs' motion to confirm the award and denied the defendant's cross-motion to vacate. The trial justice declined to review the arbitrator’s determination that the plaintiffs properly terminated the lease agreement and rejected the defendant’s objection to the arbitral remedy.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court concluded that the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the parties' lease agreement and lacked any indication that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The court affirmed the trial justice's order confirming the arbitration award. View "The University of Rhode Island Board of Trustees v. Hellenic Society Paideia-Rhode Island Chapter" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two neighboring landowners, David W. Axelrod, as Trustee of the David W. Axelrod Family Trust, and Reid Limited Partnership (RLP) and Michael Reid, an individual. The dispute arose from a settlement agreement concerning the real property and easement rights of the two parties. Axelrod purchased a property in Teton County in 2003, which was not accessible by road. Reid, who owned and operated an organic dairy farm nearby, preferred Axelrod to build onto an existing dirt road on Reid's property rather than using two easements provided in Axelrod's deed. In 2004, Axelrod built onto the existing dirt road, referred to as the "RLP Easement." However, the relationship between Axelrod and Reid began to sour in 2011, leading to a series of disputes and legal actions.The district court initially concluded that Axelrod did not have an express easement for use of the RLP Easement, but he did have an easement by estoppel. The parties then executed a settlement agreement and stipulated to dismiss the suit. However, disagreements over the implementation of the settlement agreement led to further litigation. The district court granted Axelrod's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Reid had failed to properly support any assertion of fact or address the assertions of fact in Axelrod's motion for summary judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Reid individually and affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing RLP's counterclaims for conversion and violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also affirmed the judgment of the district court on Axelrod's breach of contract claim and the judgment of the district court refusing to allow amendment of the pleadings to add RFLP as a party. However, the court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing RLP's trespass claim. The court also vacated the attorney fee award as against RLP and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Axelrod v. Reid Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over attorney's fees in a Social Security disability benefits case. The plaintiff, Christian Arnold, was represented by the law firm Binder & Binder. After Arnold was determined to be disabled and entitled to past-due benefits, the law firm requested attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on a contingency fee agreement Arnold had signed. However, the district court reduced the requested fees by nearly sixty percent, arguing that the full request would result in a "windfall" for the law firm, which was prohibited by statute. Binder & Binder appealed this decision.The case was initially heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who concluded that Arnold was not disabled. Arnold appealed this decision to the district court, which remanded the case back to the ALJ. On remand, the ALJ ruled in Arnold's favor, and the Social Security Administration issued a Notice of Award to Arnold for past-due benefits. Binder & Binder then moved for attorney's fees in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on their contingency fee agreement with Arnold. The district court, however, reduced the requested fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had abused its discretion by not basing its analysis primarily on the contingency agreement before considering the reasonableness of the request. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the contingency fee agreement should be the starting point for determining reasonableness under § 406(b), and any reduction should be justified based on relevant factors such as the claimant's satisfaction with their attorney's representation, the attorney's expertise and efforts expended, and the uncertainty of recovery and risks of an adverse outcome. View "Arnold v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a family farm in Minnesota. Richard and Paulette Dunn entered into a contract for deed with their son, Rory, for the sale of their family farm. The contract stipulated that Rory could not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer his interest in the farm without the Dunns' written consent. However, Rory died two years later without a will, and his interest in the farm was transferred to his young son by intestate succession. Jeffrey Kuhn, the personal representative of Rory’s estate, intended to divide the property and sell a portion of the farm on the open market. The Dunns responded by cancelling the contract for deed, arguing that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest to his son without their consent was a breach of the contract.The district court ruled in favor of the Dunns, stating that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest in the farm violated the consent-to-transfer provision and materially breached the contract for deed. However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the intestate transfer of Rory’s estate as a result of Rory’s inaction did not violate the consent-to-transfer provision.The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an intestate transfer of an interest in a family farm breaches a consent-to-transfer provision in a contract for deed. The court held that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest in the farm violated the consent-to-transfer provision and that this violation was a material breach of the contract for deed. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Kuhn vs. Dunn" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. (D&M), a roofing company, and Distribution, Inc., the owner of a warehouse. D&M had entered into a contract with Distribution to repair hail damage to the roof of Distribution's warehouse. However, Distribution later decided to use a different contractor for the repairs. D&M sued Distribution for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming damages based on a cancellation fee provision in the contract. The district court found that the contract was enforceable and that Distribution had breached it. However, it also found that D&M was not entitled to any damages because it had not performed any work under the contract.The district court's decision was based on D&M's admission that its breach of contract damages were limited to those under the cancellation fee provision in the contract. The court found that under the clear and unambiguous language of the provision, D&M was only entitled to a cancellation fee of 20 percent of the "work done" by D&M. Since D&M had not performed any work, it was not entitled to the cancellation fee. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Distribution on D&M's unjust enrichment claim, explaining that an enforceable contract displaces such a claim.D&M later filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time alleging lost profits as the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim. The district court construed the motion as a motion to reconsider. The court explained that even though its prior order did not use the word "dismissed," it had disposed of the whole merits of the case and left nothing for the court's further consideration. The court denied D&M's motion and granted a cross-motion by Distribution for summary judgment. D&M appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the court had not yet issued a final order or rendered a judgment. View "D& M Roofing & Siding v. Distribution, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Julie and Gary Liebel, who married in 2010 and divorced in 2022. Prior to their marriage, they had signed a premarital agreement stating that each party's assets would remain separate and under their sole control, even after the marriage. The agreement also stated that neither party would acquire any interest in the other's property due to the marriage. The couple divorced on the grounds of adultery, and the circuit court applied the premarital agreement in dividing their assets. Julie appealed, arguing that the court erred in applying the agreement to the property division in the divorce and abused its discretion in classifying and distributing the parties’ property.The circuit court had found the premarital agreement to be valid and enforceable in the context of divorce. It also found that the agreement unambiguously governed the division of property in the event of divorce. The court treated the marital home, which was held jointly, as marital property, but most of the remaining property was treated as nonmarital. Gary received the bulk of the nonmarital property valued at $713,705. Upon division of the net marital assets, Julie was awarded marital property valued at $35,482, while Gary received marital property valued at $134,535. The court ordered Gary to make a cash equalization payment to Julie in the amount of $49,526, less $2,062.80 in attorney fees awarded to Gary for defending a protection order that the court determined Julie filed maliciously.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the premarital agreement unambiguously provided that neither spouse may claim an interest in the separate property of the other, whether it was acquired before or during the marriage. This could only be understood to mean that the other spouse would not obtain any interest in separately owned property under any circumstances, including divorce, unless mutually agreed to by creating a joint tenancy in any property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's division of property. View "Liebel v. Liebel" on Justia Law