Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Jennifer and Jesse Smith divorced in 2017 after fifteen years of marriage. Jennifer, a stay-at-home mother, and Jesse, a construction superintendent, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring Jesse to pay Jennifer spousal support until January 1, 2025. The agreement included a "Review Term" stating that spousal support would be reviewed every two years. In 2018, Jesse unilaterally reduced the spousal support payments and later stopped paying altogether, leading Jennifer to file a breach of contract action.The magistrate judge dismissed Jesse's petition to modify the spousal support due to a non-merger clause, which kept the spousal support provision outside the court's jurisdiction. Jennifer then sought partial summary judgment in district court, arguing that the Review Term was too vague to be enforceable. The district court agreed, striking the Review Term but upholding the rest of the spousal support provision under the agreement's severability clause. The jury found Jesse in breach of the agreement and awarded Jennifer $76,514 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Review Term was unenforceable due to its vagueness, indefiniteness, and uncertainty. The court also upheld the district court's application of the severability clause, maintaining the enforceability of the remaining spousal support provision. Jennifer was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves an ex-wife, Stephanie P. Shilling, attempting to enforce an agreement with her ex-husband, Ebon T. Shilling, regarding the sale of her interest in a property acquired during their marriage. The ex-husband offered to purchase the ex-wife's interest via email, and she accepted the offer. However, the Family Court found that the email exchanges did not result in an enforceable contract because the parties did not adequately manifest their intent to be bound and the exchanges did not contain all material contractual terms.The Family Court of the State of Delaware previously reviewed the case. The court found that there was no enforceable contract between the parties because the email exchanges lacked a meeting of the minds and did not include all material terms. Additionally, the court concluded that signing a formal written agreement was a condition precedent to the contract, and even if there was a contract, the ex-wife acquiesced in the ex-husband's repudiation by continuing to negotiate.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and disagreed with the Family Court's findings. The Supreme Court found that the email exchanges did form an enforceable contract as they contained a clear offer and acceptance, and the parties intended to be bound by the terms discussed in the emails. The court also determined that the signing of a formal written agreement was not a condition precedent to the contract. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the ex-wife did not acquiesce in the ex-husband's repudiation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Family Court's judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief in light of the enforceable contract. View "Shilling v. Shilling" on Justia Law

Christi and August Wohlt owned a company called Echo Systems, Inc., which dealt in cryptocurrencies. Upon dissolving their marriage, they agreed that August would retain all assets of the business, except for some personal electronics that Christi would keep. However, they both forgot that Echo Systems still owned some cryptocurrencies. The issue was whether this oversight made their agreement ambiguous regarding the ownership of these cryptocurrencies.The Delaware Circuit Court dissolved their marriage and incorporated their property settlement agreement. Later, August discovered the forgotten cryptocurrencies and informed Christi. Christi then filed a motion to address the omitted assets and requested the court to divide the cryptocurrencies and increase August’s child support obligation. August moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the agreement unambiguously awarded him all of Echo Systems’ assets, including the cryptocurrencies. The trial court denied his motion, finding factual issues regarding the parties' knowledge of the cryptocurrencies. After an evidentiary hearing, the court awarded Christi half the value of the cryptocurrencies, concluding the agreement was ambiguous.The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the property settlement agreement unambiguously awarded the cryptocurrencies to August. The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on other issues, including attorney and expert fees.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals that the agreement unambiguously transferred all of Echo Systems’ assets, including the cryptocurrencies, to August. The court emphasized that the term “all” was not ambiguous and that the parties’ agreement intended to settle all their assets with finality. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of August’s motion for partial summary judgment and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision on the remaining issues. View "Wohlt v. Wohlt" on Justia Law

Jason Bott and Suzanne Bott married in 2008 and have two minor children. In November 2022, Suzanne initiated a divorce action. They entered into a stipulated settlement agreement, and a judgment reflecting the terms was entered in June 2023. Jason was awarded all real estate, including the marital home and a rental property, and was required to pay Suzanne $425,000 in two installments. Shortly after the judgment, Jason asked Suzanne to alter the terms due to financial difficulties. They signed a handwritten document without their attorneys' knowledge, agreeing that Suzanne would retain the marital home and Jason would not have to make the cash payment. Suzanne later rescinded the agreement, moved out, and filed a motion for contempt against Jason for not making the first payment.The District Court of Cavalier County denied Jason's motion to amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), finding that the parties intended to cancel the agreement. The court ordered Jason to make the cash payments as originally stipulated. Jason appealed, arguing the agreement was a valid contract and Suzanne failed to prove its rescission.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Jason's motion. The court noted that Jason did not argue the original stipulation was the result of mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, nor did he argue it was unconscionable. The court found that Jason did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the judgment. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jason failed to show the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in denying his motion. View "Bott v. Bott" on Justia Law

Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino were engaged to be married, with Johnson giving Settino a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and two wedding bands. Johnson also paid for various expenses, including part of Settino's dental implant surgery. However, Johnson ended the engagement after discovering messages on Settino's phone that led him to believe she was unfaithful, although the trial judge found no evidence of an affair. Settino kept the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Johnson did not pay for the second part of Settino's dental procedure.Johnson sued to recover the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Settino counterclaimed for the cost of the dental procedure. The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Settino, allowing her to keep the engagement ring and one wedding band, and awarded her damages for the dental procedure, including prejudgment interest from the date of Johnson's complaint. The judge found Johnson at fault for ending the engagement based on his mistaken belief of infidelity.The Appeals Court reversed the decision, ruling that Johnson was not at fault and should recover the engagement ring and wedding band. The court also found that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date of Settino's counterclaim, not Johnson's complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the concept of fault should not determine the return of engagement rings. The court adopted a no-fault approach, requiring the return of the engagement ring and wedding bands to the donor if the marriage does not occur, regardless of fault. The court also affirmed the need to recalculate prejudgment interest from the date of Settino's counterclaim. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. View "Johnson v. Settino" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law

Dr. Earl Bostick Sr. and Josie Bostick married in 1970, and Dr. Bostick developed two successful dental practices in South Carolina. In 2009, he sold one practice and continued with the other until the couple separated in 2017, after which he sold the remaining practice for $569,000. The sales contract indicated that $424,140 of this amount was for goodwill and a non-compete agreement. The couple agreed to an equal division of the marital estate but disputed whether the goodwill was personal (nonmarital) or enterprise (marital) property.The Family Court granted the divorce and ruled that the goodwill in Dr. Bostick's practice was personal, thus not subject to division. The court based its decision on the evidence that the goodwill was tied to Dr. Bostick's personal reputation and professional skills. Josie Bostick appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Family Court's decision, determining that the goodwill should be considered enterprise goodwill and thus marital property.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the Family Court's ruling. The Supreme Court found that the goodwill was indeed personal, as it was closely tied to Dr. Bostick's reputation, community involvement, and professional skills. The Court emphasized that Josie Bostick did not present evidence to prove the goodwill was enterprise in nature. The presence of a non-compete agreement further supported the conclusion that the goodwill was personal. Consequently, the value of the goodwill was excluded from the marital estate, and the Family Court's judgment was reinstated. View "Bostick v. Bostick" on Justia Law

Jill and Grant Wiese were married for nearly 30 years before their marriage was dissolved in 2016. They had a premarital agreement (PMA) that kept their assets and earnings separate, with Grant responsible for reasonable support. Jill worked as an independent agent for Grant’s real estate brokerage, receiving 100% of her commissions after deductions for business expenses and estimated taxes. Grant deducted amounts for taxes and personal expenses he believed exceeded his support obligations, but the tax deductions did not match the actual taxes paid, and he did not refund the excess to Jill.The Superior Court of Orange County found the PMA valid and enforceable. Jill then brought claims against Grant for breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that his deductions from her commissions were excessive and impaired her separate property. Grant countered that Jill’s claims were time-barred and meritless. The trial court ruled in Jill’s favor on the tax-withholding claims, awarding her over $1.3 million, but rejected her other claims. Both parties appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that Jill’s fiduciary duty claims were subject to a four-year statute of limitations and that most were time-barred. For the surviving claims, the court found Grant breached his fiduciary duty by withholding excessive amounts for taxes but erred in awarding Jill the entire amount withheld rather than the excess. The court also found that Grant’s deductions for personal expenses required reconsideration. It affirmed that Grant was solely liable for the mortgage debt on their jointly owned property but reversed the order requiring Jill to reimburse Grant for housing during their separation. The court remanded for further proceedings, including recalculating damages and reconsidering attorney fees. View "Marriage of Wiese" 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

The case involves a dispute over a postnuptial modification of a premarital agreement. The parties, David and Elizabeth Roberts, entered into a premarital agreement before their marriage in 1993. The agreement stipulated that each spouse waived their statutory elective share, but agreed that each would take one-third of the other’s net real property interests at the time of death. Twenty-four years later, the parties executed a new agreement, a "partial revocation" of the premarital agreement, which maintained the waiver of elective share but relinquished their one-third share in each other’s real property investments at the time of death. Elizabeth received approximately $15,000 cash and $50,000 in debt repayment or forgiveness from David, plus a monthly living allowance for as long as the couple remained married. After David's death, Elizabeth contested the validity of this partial revocation.The district court rejected Elizabeth's challenge and enforced the partial revocation. Elizabeth appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that under Iowa law, specifically Iowa Code sections 596.7 and 597.2, a postmarital amendment to a premarital agreement relating to inchoate dower interests in property is not enforceable. The court found that the partial revocation was essentially an amendment, not a revocation, and that Iowa law does not permit married persons who previously entered into a premarital agreement to enter into a new agreement during their marriage relating to inchoate dower interests in each other’s property. The court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding counterclaims made by David's son, Eric, who asked that if the partial revocation agreement is invalidated, Elizabeth should be required to relinquish the benefits she received as a result thereof to avoid unjust enrichment. View "Roberts v. Roberts" on Justia Law