Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs are wholesalers of beer and wine; each acted as the exclusive distributor of Miller and/or Coors brands within a defined territory under written franchise agreements. In 2007, Miller and Coors entered a Joint Venture agreement, contemplating creation of MillerCoors, restructured their respective businesses and assets, and assigned distribution agreements to the Joint Venture. MillerCoors notified the plaintiffs that it intended to terminate their distribution rights as a successor manufacturer under Ohio Rev. Code 1333.85(D). The district court found that MillerCoors is not a “successor manufacturer” under Ohio law because it is controlled by Miller and Coors, and that the Act, therefore, prohibits MillerCoors from terminating the distributorships. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Miller and Coors exercise control over MillerCoors through their equal voting power, veto power, the appointment of directors, all of whom are present officers or employees of the joint venture partners, and who owe their fiduciary duty only to Miller or Coors, their influence over the executive team, and their funding of MillerCoors. Even under the manufacturers’ proposed definition of “control,” the evidence shows that Miller and Coors together retain the power to “direct, superintend, restrict, govern, [and] oversee” MillerCoors. View "Beverage Distrib., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co." on Justia Law

Appellant RFT Management Co., L.L.C. (RFT) brought this action against respondents Tinsley & Adams, L.L.P. and attorney Welborn D. Adams (collectively, Law Firm) based on their legal representation of RFT during the closing of its purchase of two real estate investment properties in Greenwood County. RFT alleged claims for (1) professional negligence (legal malpractice), (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act1 (UTPA), and (4) aiding and abetting a securities violation in contravention of the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act of 2005 (SCUSA). The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Law Firm on RFT's causes of action regarding the UTPA and SCUSA, and it merged RFT's breach of fiduciary claim with its legal malpractice claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Law Firm on RFT's remaining claim for legal malpractice. RFT appealed, and the Supreme Court certified the case from the Court of Appeals for its review. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court with respect to all issues brought on appeal. View "RFT Management Co. v. Tinsley & Adams" on Justia Law

WR sought to develop a medical office building by executing a long-term ground lease to a developer, who would design, finance, construct, and own the facility, leasing space to WR. WR requested proposals, describing a 30-year ground lease for a 30,000 square foot medical facility. Citadel submitted a proposal. Negotiations followed. WR signed an “Authorization to Proceed” stating that WR “will only be responsible for architectural and engineering fees in the event [W R] does not execute its space leases and ground lease.” Citadel hired attorneys, architects, engineers; refined plans: conducted zoning review, and began securing financing. Negotiations failed. WR terminated the relationship, just as Citadel was preparing to commence construction. WR refused to pay expenses unless it received the plans; entered into contracts with Citadel’s architect and engineer; used their plans and built the facility. The district court rejected Citadel’s claims. The parties settled with respect to pre-construction costs and fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Citadel failed to show that WR agreed to complete the arrangement. When the relationship ended, they had not agreed on essential lease terms. No language in the agreement required the parties to negotiate in good faith, nor did it establish a framework for the negotiation process. View "Citidal Grp. Ltd. v. Washington Reg'l Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

This was an interlocutory appeal from the district court's grant of class certification in a case involving allegations that the defendant title insurance company charged premiums for title policies that exceeded the refinance rates set by the Texas Department of Insurance in Tex. Ins. Code Rate Rule R-8. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of class certification and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) were satisfied, as none of the four questions identified by the district court was actually common to the class and common questions would not predominate at trial. View "Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Whelan Security Company appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charles Kennebrew and W. Landon Morgan on its action to enforce the non-compete agreements it had with Kennebrew and Morgan. On appeal, Whelan claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses were invalid as overbroad and unreasonable as to time and space. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed, holding that the non-compete agreements were unreasonable as written but modified the terms of the agreements to give effect to the intent of the parties in entering the non-compete agreement; and (2) because genuine factual issues existed, entry of summary judgment was improper. Remanded. View "Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew" on Justia Law

Former Bushmaster shareholders Thomas Barr Jr. and Claude Warren appealed a judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket in which the court granted summary judgment to all defendants on Barr and Warren’s complaint seeking rescission and other remedies based on claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and infliction of emotional distress. The court concluded that the terms of the stock purchase agreement and general release executed in settlement of Barr and Warren’s prior claims must be enforced in the circumstances of this case. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was the enforceability of the contracts executed in settlement of litigation. The Court found that the minority shareholders (Barr and Warren) explicitly disclaimed reliance on the corporation and its officers and directors in determining the value of the stock that they were selling pursuant to the settlement agreement, but they sought to avoid enforcement of that disclaimer-of-reliance clause. The Court concluded that the allegations purporting to demonstrate fraud did not, in the absence of reliance, vitiate the terms of the contract of release executed between these parties, who had access to counsel, understood Bushmaster’s business, and negotiated clear terms at arm’s length in settlement of the earlier contentious lawsuit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court enforced the general release with regard to the remaining claims, and affirmed the judgment disposing of Barr and Warren’s claims. View "Barr Jr. v. Dyke et al." on Justia Law

During an eight-month period, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (“Hemispherx”) hired three different investment brokers to raise capital for it. Hemispherx hired the first two brokers at a time when it was difficult to sell Hemispherx’s stock. Months later, when market forces made Hemispherx’s stock much more attractive, Hemispherx hired a third broker was able very quickly to raise $31 million in capital for Hemispherx through stock sales. All three brokers focused their capital-raising efforts on several of the same prospective investors and, when several of those investors eventually purchased Hemispherx stock, a dispute arose as to which of the three brokers was entitled to a commission on the stock sales. The first investment broker Hemispherx hired, Defendant and Counterclaimant Mid-South Capital, Inc. (“Mid-South”), sought to recover a commission for its efforts in identifying investors and introducing them to Hemispherx. Hemispherx contendsed that Mid-South and its employees, Defendants Robert Rosenstein and Adam Cabibi, tortiously interfered with Hemispherx’s business relationship with its investors and with the third investment broker who ultimately closed the stock deals at issue here. The district court denied each party relief, granting judgment on the pleadings to Hemispherx on Mid-South’s breach-of-contract claim, and summary judgment to Hemispherx on Mid-South’s remaining claims and to Mid-South on Hemispherx’s intentional interference with business relationships claim. After review of the matter, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court in granting summary judgment to Mid-South on the tortious interference claim; reversed the judgment on the pleadings on Mid-South's breach-of-contract claim; and reversed the grant of summary judgment for Hemispherx on Mid-South's promissory estoppel, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Mid-South Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Regions Bank ("Regions"), as sole trustee of the J.F.B. Lowrey Trust ("the Lowrey Trust"), appealed a circuit court's order that denied Regions' motion to award it attorney fees and costs. Sam G. Lowrey, Jr., and Shelby Lowrey Jones, two of the current beneficiaries of the Lowrey Trust ("the beneficiaries") cross-appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Regions on their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. The beneficiaries claimed that Regions failed to protect and preserve the assets of the Lowrey Trust, which consisted primarily of approximately 20,000 acres of timberland located in Monroe and Conecuh Counties and which have been the subject of much intra-family litigation. The trial court entered a detailed order in favor of Regions, rejecting the beneficiaries' claims of mismanagement of the trust assets and taxing costs against the beneficiaries. Regions filed a bill of costs and a supplemental bill of costs detailing all the expenses incurred in defending the claim, and attaching supporting documentation. The beneficiaries filed a motion to review taxation of costs and a motion to vacate the judgment. The trial court did not rule on the motions, and all post-trial motions were deemed denied by operation of law. Regions timely appealed, and the beneficiaries filed a cross-appeal. Upon review of the record of the five-day bench trial and the considerable documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision on the beneficiaries' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Regions on that claim. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling on Regions' motion for attorney fees, and remanded this case back to the trial court for a hearing on Regions' attorney-fee motion to consider the reasonableness of the attorney fee. View "Regions Bank v.Lowrey" on Justia Law

Highlands of Lay, LLC ("Highlands") appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Edward O. Murphree. Murphree sued Highlands and John J. Miller, who Murphree alleged was a member of Highlands and its authorized agent. Murphree alleged fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract, arising out of a real-estate transaction. After he amended his complaint, Murphree was not able to obtain service upon Highlands or Miller, and the trial court granted a motion to serve them by publication. Highlands and Miller answered, and Highlands filed a counterclaim alleging negligence. Murphree then served discovery requests on Highlands. Murphree later sent additional discovery requests to Highlands and Miller; Highlands and Miller did not respond. When Highlands and Miller continued to be unresponsive to the suit, Murphree moved for a default judgment. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court found that some of the issues presented in the then-still pending claim against Miller were the same issues presented in this appeal by Highlands. Highlands argued that the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment against it because it had a meritorious defense to Murphree's claims based on Miller's statements or e-mail from Miller and the timing of statements or e-mail to Murphree. "Appellate review in piecemeal fashion is not favored." The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying the judgment entered against Highlands as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). Highlands' appeal was therefore dismissed. View "Highlands of Lay, LLC v. Murphree " on Justia Law

In the second of two lawsuits brought by appellant Francie Bonnell against her daughter and son-in-law, respondents Sabrina and Steven Lawrence, Appellant appealed the grant of summary judgment from the first suit, along with its associated fee award. The underlying case arose from a $135,000 payment that Bonnell made to retire the mortgage debt on her daughter’s home ("Lindell premises"). Bonnell saw the payment as an advance on what her daughter would eventually inherit anyway, but with a catch: She expected, in return, a life estate in the premises, allowing her to live in the home, rent-free, for the rest of her life. The daughter acknowledged the $135,000 payment. However, she viewed it as a loan (which she and her husband repaid when they deeded Bonnell a different home with equity of $135,000). No writing memorialized the latter agreement, and the facts of the case questioned whether there was one. In her first suit, Bonnell asserted a variety of legal and equitable claims, all premised on her claimed life estate in the Lindell premises. Bonnell's attorney had withdrawn, and she continued in proper person. She received the motion for summary judgment, but she did not file a written opposition to it, and it was granted by written order. More than a year later, Bonnell obtained new counsel, who filed this second suit on her behalf. Although filed in the same judicial district and repeating the claims in the first suit, the second suit went to a new district court judge. The Lawrences moved to dismiss the second suit for failure to state a claim under NRCP 12(b)(5). They argued that res judicata barred relitigation of Bonnell’s claims and that, to the extent Bonnell identified grounds for avoiding the prior summary judgment, she could and should have asserted them by motion under NRCP 60(b)(1)-(3) within the six-month deadline specified in the rule. The district court credited the Lawrences’ arguments, rejected Bonnell’s, and dismissed the second suit with prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bonnell v. Lawrence" on Justia Law