Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendants-Appellants Timothy and Elizabeth Lamb appealed a summary judgment cancelling their contract for deed with EVI Columbus, LLC ("EVI") and awarding EVI its costs incurred in cancelling the contract for deed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Lambs' motion to amend their answer to include counterclaims against EVI and refusing to construe the Lambs' affirmative defenses as counterclaims; the trial court properly granted EVI's motion for summary judgment awarding a $150 personal judgment against the Lambs to EVI for its costs and disbursements; and the Court denied EVI's request for double costs and attorney's fees related to the appeal.

Defendant Helen Cupido appealed a trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of Recovery Resources, LLC. Helen and David Cupido married in January 1993. In March 2010, David Cupido incurred medical expenses at St. Alexius Medical Center. The parties divorced in April 2011. Under the divorce judgment, the trial court ordered David Cupido responsible for payment of the debt owed to St. Alexius Medical Center. The divorce judgment also required Helen and David to indemnify one another from any and all collection activities, which may arise regarding debts awarded to a party. Recovery Resources, LLC, a collection company, sued Helen and David for $9,494.61 owed to St. Alexius Medical Center for medical care provided to David while he and Helen were married and living together. David did not answer Recovery Resources' claim and a default judgment was entered against him. Helen answered denying liability and cross-claimed for indemnity against David. Helen then moved for summary judgment arguing she was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because the divorce judgment allocated the debt to David. Recovery Resources resisted and moved for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because Helen was liable for the debt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Recovery Resources. On appeal, Helen contended the trial court erred: (1) by concluding she is jointly and severally liable for the debt David incurred, and (2) by failing to dismiss her from the lawsuit based on the indemnification language in the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the indemnification language in the divorce judgment between Helen and David Cupido did not affect Recovery Resources' statutory right to recover the debt. Accordingly the trial court did not err in failing to dismiss Helen from the collection action.

Plaintiff Mutual Development Corporation appealed a Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Ward Fisher & Company, LLP (Ward Fisher) and WF Realty & Investment, LLC (WF Realty). On appeal, plaintiff contended that the hearing justice improperly interpreted and applied subsection 6 of G.L. 1956 sec. 9-1-4 (the Statute of Frauds) in deciding that that subsection could properly be invoked with respect to an alleged oral finder's fee agreement between plaintiff and the defendants, thereby barring recovery by plaintiff. The Supreme Court requested the parties address" (1) "the issue of whether there is a distinction between a finder and a broker with respect to real estate transactions, and, if so whether the language of the statute of frauds, G.L. 1956 sec. [9-1-4], encompasses a finder as well as a broker;" and (2) the issue of "[w]hether the statute of frauds applies equally to percentage-based commissions and flat-sum commissions, or solely to percentage-based commissions or fees." After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) operated a customer rewards program, called Camel Cash, from 1991 to 1007. Customers could purchase Camel cigarettes, save Camel Cash certificates, enroll in the program, and ultimately redeem their certificates for merchandise featured in RJR catalogs. Plaintiffs alleged that, in reliance on RJR's actions, they purchased Camel cigarettes, enrolled in the program, and saved their certificates for future redemption. They alleged that in 2006 RJR abruptly ceased accepting certificates for redemption, making Plaintiffs' unredeemed certificates worthless. Plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of two California consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (2) reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged these claims.

Plaintiff brought suit against an airline alleging a common law breach of contract under the implied covenant of god faith and fair dealing. The district court held that Plaintiff's claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and dismissed the claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court after examining the purpose, history, and language of the ADA, along with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, leading the Court to conclude that the ADA does not preempt a contract claim based on the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against St. Patrick Congregation, alleging that her employment was terminated for an improper reason. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, concluding that because St. Patrick was a religious institution and Plaintiff was a ministerial employee, Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a court may not review whether St. Patrick improperly terminated its ministerial employee because St. Patrick's choice of who shall serve as its ministerial employee is a matter of church governance protected from state interference by the First Amendment and by Wis. Const. art. I, 18; and (2) accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which a court may grant relief.

Petitioner Mark Fountain brought this action for defamation based on a statement by Thomas C. Ewart, chief banking officer for Respondent First Reliance Bank, as to why the bank would not make a loan on a business venture between Fountain and Ernest Pennell. With at least some of Fountain's financial background known to Pennell, Fountain and Pennell approached First Reliance to request funds after two other lending institutions denied their loan requests. At this point in time, Ewart called Pennell in for a meeting to discuss the matter. Fountain was not present. At that meeting, Ewart stated that First Reliance would not be making the loan if Fountain was involved in the business. Pennell subsequently relayed Ewart's statement to Fountain, and told him to "tear up" the agreement between the two of them. Fountain later requested Pennell to meet him at his lawyer's office, where Pennell repeated the statement in front of Fountain's attorney. Fountain filed a complaint against First Reliance, Ewart, and Pennell for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. All three defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motions, finding the statement was not defamatory, the publication of the statement was privileged, and no intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was established. Fountain appeals only the grant of summary judgment in favor of First Reliance and Ewart on his defamation claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Ewart's statement was not defamatory, and even if it was, a qualified privilege existed in this case. As there was no evidence that this privilege was abused by Respondents, summary judgment was proper.

Brentwood Homes, Inc. and the other appellants in this case (collectively "Brentwood Homes") appealed a circuit court's order denying a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by Petitioner Fred Bradley that arose out of his purchase of a home in South Carolina. Although Brentwood Homes conceded the Home Purchase Agreement did not meet the technical requirements of the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act (the "UAA"), it claimed the court erred in denying the motion because the transaction involved interstate commerce and thus was subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the essential character of the Agreement was strictly for the purchase of a completed residential dwelling and not the construction, the Court found the FAA did not apply. Furthermore, the existence of the national warranty and Bradley's use of out-of-state financing did not negate the intrastate nature of the transaction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Brentwood Homes' motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration as Brentwood Homes failed to offer sufficient evidence that the transaction involved interstate commerce to subject the Agreement to the FAA.

Plaintiff Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. appealed a Chancery Court judgment granting Defendant Vulcan Materials Company relief on its counterclaims, and an accompanying injunction. The Chancery Court enjoined Martin for a four month period from continuing to prosecute its pending Exchange Offer and Proxy Contest to acquire control of Vulcan. That injunctive relief was granted to remedy Martin's adjudicated violations of two contracts between Martin and Vulcan: a Non-Disclosure Letter Agreement (the "NDA") and a Common Interest, Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement (the "JDA"). Finding that the Chancery Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the equities favored Vulcan, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision.

At issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case was whether an adverse claim to a stake may be so lacking in substance that a neutral stakeholder cannot interplead in good faith. Interpleader is proper when a stakeholder has at least a good faith belief that there are conflicting colorable claims. Appellee in this case was an insurance company that sought to interplead disputed insurance proceeds. Seeking to interplead the insurance funds, Appellee filed a counterclaim against Appellant and a third party complaint against Appellant's former husband. The district court found that interpleader was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellee interpleaded in good faith, and consequently, the district court's judgment in interpleader was proper.