Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

In this case, the husband filed for an absolute divorce, and the wife counterclaimed. The parties attempted mediation but did not reach a settlement. The wife’s counsel later sent a settlement package to the husband’s counsel, which included a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, a promissory note, and a guaranty. The cover letter specified that the husband needed to sign the agreement and note by the end of the day on September 25, 2020. The husband signed the documents on September 28, 2020, and filed an amended complaint for divorce based on mutual consent, incorporating the agreement.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County found that the husband had timely accepted the wife’s offer and that a binding settlement agreement was formed. The court granted the husband’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and entered a judgment for absolute divorce based on mutual consent, incorporating but not merging the agreement into the judgment. The wife appealed, and the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court’s judgment, finding that the husband had not timely accepted the wife’s offer and that no contract was formed.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. The court held that the wife’s offer was conditioned on the husband signing the agreement and note by September 25, 2020, and that the husband’s failure to meet this deadline meant that no contract was formed. The court also found no evidence that the wife had waived the deadline. The court concluded that the husband’s signing of the documents on September 28, 2020, constituted a counteroffer, which the wife was not obligated to accept. View "Pattison v. Pattison" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Peter Lowes and Amy Thompson, formerly Amy Lowes, regarding a nondisparagement clause in their stipulated divorce judgment. Lowes alleged that Thompson breached this clause by describing him as her "abuser" during a political campaign interview. Thompson filed a special motion to strike the breach of contract claim under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to quickly dismiss nonmeritorious claims arising from protected speech. The trial court granted Thompson’s motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the nondisparagement clause waived Thompson’s right to the anti-SLAPP statute’s protections.The Deschutes County Circuit Court initially granted Thompson’s special motion to strike, finding that her statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and that Lowes failed to show a probability of prevailing on his claim. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the nondisparagement clause constituted a waiver of Thompson’s anti-SLAPP protections, thus making it unnecessary to evaluate whether Lowes could prevail on his claim.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the nondisparagement clause did not clearly indicate an intention to waive the procedural protections of the anti-SLAPP statute. Therefore, the clause alone could not defeat Thompson’s special motion to strike. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in part and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to determine whether Lowes met his burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on his breach of contract claim. View "Lowes v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Kelly O. Orgeron, sought a community property share of $16,949,000 in liquidated damages paid to her ex-husband, Edward J. Orgeron, Jr., upon the termination of his employment as a college football coach in 2021. The liquidated damages were a contractual benefit guaranteed by his employer, Louisiana State University (LSU), effective January 14, 2020, before the defendant filed for divorce on February 26, 2020. The agreements relevant to this case included a Binding Term Sheet, an Employment Agreement, and a Termination Agreement, all of which had provisions regarding liquidated damages upon termination without cause.The trial court did not award the plaintiff a share of the liquidated damages, interpreting the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet as an agreement to agree rather than a binding contract. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, upheld this decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation. The court held that the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet was a binding and enforceable contract, and the subsequent Employment Agreement continued and confirmed the termination-without-cause provisions. Both agreements were effective during the existence of the community property regime between the plaintiff and the defendant, making the liquidated damages a community asset.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her a one-half share of the net liquidated damages, amounting to $8,134,500. View "Orgeron v. Orgeron" on Justia Law

Vanessa Turner (formerly Vanessa Colley) and John S. Colley, III were divorced in 2012, with a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) and a permanent parenting plan incorporated into the final decree. Post-divorce, John filed a petition to terminate his transitional alimony obligation, alleging Vanessa was cohabiting with her fiancé. Vanessa defended the alimony award, and after extensive litigation, John nonsuited his petition before it was adjudicated on the merits.The Circuit Court for Davidson County awarded Vanessa $16,500 in attorney fees, finding it reasonably necessary for her to defend the alimony award. John appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that neither party was a "prevailing party" under the MDA or Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-103(c) because the petition was nonsuited before a decision on the merits.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that Vanessa was the prevailing party under both the MDA and section 36-5-103(c). The Court reasoned that the MDA's language entitled Vanessa to attorney fees as the prevailing party because she successfully defended the alimony award, achieving her objective of maintaining the status quo. The Court also held that under section 36-5-103(c), a party defending against a petition to alter or modify an alimony award can be considered a prevailing party even if the petition is nonsuited before a decision on the merits.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the trial court's award of attorney fees to Vanessa, and awarded her attorney fees on appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees for the appeals. View "Colley v. Colley" on Justia Law

In 2023, Basin Authority, a Wyoming Child Support Agency, notified Rodolfo P. Munoz that he was in arrears on his child support obligation and began garnishing his social security. Mr. Munoz filed a complaint against the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS), and some of its employees, as well as Basin Authority and several of its employees. He alleged breach of contract and violations of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Mr. Munoz’s complaint after a hearing.The district court of Big Horn County granted the motions to dismiss filed by the State Defendants and the Basin Authority Defendants. The court found that Mr. Munoz had not made allegations against the State Defendants and that they were not subject to suit under § 1983 because they are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute. The court also found that a breach of contract claim is not actionable under § 1983 and that the alleged agreement was void and unenforceable. Mr. Munoz’s objection and response to the State Defendants’ proposed order on the motion to dismiss and his motion for reconsideration were denied.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court’s decision. The court noted that Mr. Munoz failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not present cogent arguments supported by pertinent authority. The court emphasized that even pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and present coherent arguments. The court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate due to the deficiencies in Mr. Munoz’s brief and his failure to present relevant legal arguments. View "Munoz v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Chanel Glover and Nicole Junior, a same-sex married couple, decided to conceive a child using assistive reproductive technology (ART) and a sperm donor. They entered into various contracts with a fertility clinic and a sperm bank, and both signed affidavits expressing their intent for Junior to adopt the child. However, their relationship deteriorated before the child was born, and Glover filed for divorce. Junior sought a court order to establish her parentage of the child, which the family court granted.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County confirmed Junior as the legal parent of the child, ordered Glover to inform Junior when she went into labor, and required Junior's name to appear on the child's birth certificate. Glover appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Junior established parentage through contract principles, equitable estoppel, and intent-based parentage.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that none of the existing pathways to establish legal parentage—biology, adoption, equity, or contract—applied to the facts of this case. The court adopted the doctrine of intent-based parentage into Pennsylvania common law, recognizing that the parties' mutual intent to conceive and raise the child together, as evidenced by their actions and agreements, established Junior's parentage. The court affirmed the Superior Court's decision on the ground of intent-based parentage, emphasizing that this doctrine aligns with public policy and the evolving concept of family. View "Glover v. Junior" on Justia Law

Jared Peterka, a neighbor and tenant of John and Irene Janda, assumed the lease of their farmland in 2012. The lease was renewed every three years, and in 2019, a right of first refusal for Peterka to purchase the land was added. In October 2018, the Jandas established a living trust and conveyed the property into it, with their daughters as residuary beneficiaries. In June 2021, the Jandas and Peterka executed an option to purchase the property. Shortly after, guardianship proceedings were initiated, and the Jandas were found incapacitated. The guardians rescinded the option to purchase.Peterka filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to validate the option to purchase. The Defendants counterclaimed, arguing the option was the result of undue influence and that the Jandas lacked capacity. After a four-day bench trial, the District Court of Traill County found the option to purchase was facially valid and not a product of undue influence. However, it ruled the option was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas' lack of capacity and dismissed Peterka’s complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Peterka argued the district court erred in its findings on capacity. The Supreme Court clarified that the capacity to enter into a contract and the capacity under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 are distinct. The court found the district court did not misstate the law and its findings were supported by evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the option to purchase was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas being of unsound mind but not entirely without understanding. View "Peterka v. Janda" on Justia Law

Bonnie Campbell, a federal employee, and Michael Campbell, her ex-husband, entered into a divorce property settlement agreement in which Mr. Campbell waived his rights to Ms. Campbell's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account. Despite this agreement, Ms. Campbell did not remove Mr. Campbell as the beneficiary of her TSP account before her death. After her death, Mr. Campbell received the balance of the TSP account. The estate of Ms. Campbell (the Estate) sued Mr. Campbell for breach of contract to enforce the terms of the divorce settlement agreement.The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of the Estate on its breach of contract claim, awarding money damages. The court rejected Mr. Campbell's argument that the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA) preempted the Estate's claim. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that FERSA preempted the Estate's breach of contract claim.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that FERSA does not preempt the Estate’s post-distribution breach of contract action. The court found that FERSA’s purposes, which include establishing a federal employee retirement plan and ensuring it is fully funded and financially sound, do not concern plan beneficiaries. The court also noted that FERSA’s provisions elevate the requirements of a qualifying state property settlement agreement over a deceased participant’s designated beneficiary, provided notice is given before payment. The court concluded that a post-distribution suit to enforce contractual obligations in a divorce property settlement agreement does not hinder any governmental interest in administrative convenience or avoiding double payment. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed, and the Circuit Court's judgment was affirmed. View "In re Isely" on Justia Law

Michael Jones purchased Series EE federal savings bonds during his marriage to Jeanine Jones, designating her as the pay-on-death beneficiary. Upon their divorce, their divorce settlement agreement (DSA) did not specifically address the savings bonds but included a provision that any marital asset not listed would belong to the party currently in possession. The DSA also required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 in installments. After Michael's death, Jeanine redeemed the savings bonds and filed a creditor’s claim against Michael’s Estate for the remaining $100,000 owed under the DSA. The Estate argued that the redemption of the savings bonds satisfied Michael’s financial obligations to Jeanine.The trial court agreed with the Estate, ruling that the savings bonds counted towards Michael’s $200,000 obligation under the DSA and dismissed Jeanine’s claim for reimbursement. Jeanine appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds preempted state law, and Jeanine was the sole owner of the bonds at Michael’s death. Therefore, the value of the redeemed bonds should not be credited towards the Estate’s obligations under the DSA.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that preemption was not an issue because N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 does not conflict with federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds. The Court found that the DSA did not direct the disposition of the savings bonds, and thus, the bonds should not be credited against Michael’s $200,000 obligation. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified, ruling that the Estate must make the remaining payments to Jeanine as required by the DSA. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Jones" on Justia Law