Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendants Jay and Theresa Knowlton appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellants Tapadeera, LLC and Cary Hamilton (d/b/a C&J Construction) on their claim that Defendants prevented Plaintiffs from performing a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit between the parties. Tapadeera owned a parcel of property that had been platted as one lot. Tapadeera sold the property as two parcels -a two-acre parcel and a six-acre parcel purchased apparently under a real estate contract. The purchasers had a modular home placed on the two-acre parcel, but they failed to make the payments due in both transactions. As a result, the lender foreclosed on the two-acre parcel, and Tapadeera regained title to the six-acre parcel. Defendants desired both parcels to construct a home. They purchased the two-acre parcel from the bank, and contracted with Tapadeera to purchase the six-acre parcel. After making several payments under the contract, Mr. Knowlton contacted Cary Hamilton, Tapadeera's president, to determine the amount necessary to pay the contract in full. Mrs. Knowlton recorded the deed, and the Knowltons stopped payment on the check when they discovered that they could not obtain a building permit for the six-acre parcel because it had been wrongly divided from the two-acre parcel. For over four years, neither party took any action regarding this transaction. Eventually the parties sought to finish the deal, and it headed to court. Mr. Hamilton agreed to fix the subdivision problem and the Knowltons agreed to pay the balance owing. However, when notice of the subdivision was mailed to adjacent and affected property owners, the Knowltons were omitted from the notice. They learned of the hearing regarding the subdivision after it was over; they gave notice that they were withdrawing their subdivision application. The court held that the county's approval of the subdivision application was a condition precedent to the Knowltons' obligation to pay the balance, but that they had wrongfully prevented performance of that condition by withdrawing the subdivision application. The Knowltons moved for reconsideration which was denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "This case illustrates the time and expense that can be wasted when the parties fail to exercise common sense to resolve an issue. Clearly, Tapadeera should have had the lot subdivided in connection with the first sale. When the issue arose after the sale of the six-acre parcel to the Knowltons, the parties should have met and agreed to the resolution they reached six years later. Once they did so, they both should have been reasonable in doing whatever was necessary to effectuate the replatting of the lot."

This case was the third appeal to the Supreme Court arising from a 2002 real estate transaction between Thomas and Colleen Birch-Maile and the Theodore L. Johnson Revocable Trust. Attorney and Real Estate Broker Thomas Maile advised the Trust to reject an offer to sell certain trust property. Months later, Mr. Maile submitted an earnest money agreement for the same property. The prospective buyers, collectively the Taylors, sued the Mailes and Berkshire Investments, LLC (the company that the Mailes formed and to whom they assigned rights to the property) for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties. The Mailes filed suit seeking to set aside a 2006 judgment against them, which the Court affirmed in the second appeal. The district court determined on summary judgment that the 2006 judgment was res judicata with regard to the issues raised in the Mailes' complaint. At trial the jury awarded damages against the Mailes on the Taylors' counterclaim. The Mailes appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed: the district court was correct in summarily dismissing the Mailes' lawsuit and denying their motion for JNOV. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney to two of the prospective buyers.

The issue before the Supreme Court in this was the denial of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 41-1839 on the ground that the insured's proof of loss was insufficient under the statute because it did not provide the insurer with the legal theory upon which coverage was later determined to exist. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment because a proof of loss need not include an analysis of the proper theory of coverage under the insurance policy.

This case arose from a dispute regarding the sewer system serving Sunnyside Industrial Park, LLC. Sunnyside Park Utilities (SPU) provides water and sewer services to the industrial park and Doyle Beck and Kirk Woolf are, respectively, the Secretary and President of SPU. Printcraft Press, Inc. (Printcraft) is a printing business that occupies a building in the industrial park. In 2004, Printcraft entered a ten-year lease for property in the industrial park. The dispute in this case centered on the failure of Beck, Woolf, and SPU to disclose limitations on the sewage system, including the amount of sewage the system could handle and its lack of suitability to dispose of some chemicals used in the printing business. After Printcraft started using the sewage system, SPU disconnected Printcraft from the system in December 2006. Printcraft sued SPU, Beck, and Woolf (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract, fraudulent nondisclosure, and fraud. At trial, the jury found that the defendants owed Printcraft a duty to disclose the limitations of the system and failed to do so. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in favor of Printcraft. Defendants timely appealed and Printcraft cross-appealed. However, in 2009, SPU filed a renewed motion for relief from judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), asserting newly discovered evidence regarding whether Printcraft's damages claim was affected by its subsequent connection to the Idaho Falls city sewer system. The district court found that the newly discovered evidence satisfied the requirements of I.R.C.P. 60(b) and granted a new trial on the issue of damages. On appeal, the defendants argued that they had no duty to disclose, that any failure to disclose did not lead Printcraft to believe any fact that was false, that the refusal to give SPU's requested jury instructions was improper, and that the district court erred in denying their motion for JNOV because there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of damages. In turn, Printcraft's cross-appeal argued that the district court erred in limiting the potential bases for defendants' duty to disclose, that Printcraft's breach of contract claim was improperly dismissed, that the subsequent Rule 60(b) motion was improperly granted, that the issue of punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury, and that the judge erred in denying Printcraft's request for attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's grant of SPU's motion under 60(b)(2). The Court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for JNOV as to the existence and breach of a duty to disclose and as to the amount of damages. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the jury instructions. And the Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Printcraft's request to put the question of punitive damages to the jury.

Petitioner Tanner Mickelsen appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Broadway Ford, Inc. on his complaint that alleged fraud in the inducement. Petitioner asked for a rescission of the contract between the parties based on that alleged fraud or alternatively on mutual mistake. Petitioner leased a truck from Broadway Ford. The truck had over 1400 miles on it, but was sold as new and under factory warranty. The truck had been modified with a six-inch suspension lift and four oversized tires. Though he purchased the truck in Idaho Falls, Petitioner resided in Moses Lake, and took the truck to his local dealership for repairs. In the first year of the lease, Discovery Ford made several repairs to the vehicle under the warranty. But when Petitioner took the truck back to Discovery Ford for "handling problems," the service manager advised Petitioner that these repairs would not be covered by the warranty because of the lift modifications made to the truck's suspension. Broadway Ford told Petitioner that they would try to resolve the issue if Petitioner drove or shipped the truck to Idaho Falls. Petitioner did not take the truck back to Idaho Falls or ship it there. He eventually stopped making lease payments and voluntarily surrendered the truck to the bank who provided the financing. Finding that the district court made no error in granting summary judgment in favor of Broadway Ford, the Court affirmed that court's decision.

This appeal arose from Gaylen Clayson's attempt to purchase a restaurant and cheese factory in Thayne, Wyoming. Prior to making a formal offer on the property, Clayson was granted access to the property in order to begin operating the restaurant and refurbishing the factory. His effort to purchase the subject property ultimately failed, and Don Zebe and Rick Lawson subsequently purchased the property. Clayson then filed a breach of contract action against Zebe and Lawson, alleging the existence of both express and implied contracts entitling Clayson to compensation for the pre-purchase work Clayson had performed on the property. The district court partially granted Zebe and Lawson's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no express contract between the parties. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the parties' conduct created both implied-in-fact and implied-in-law contracts, which required Zebe to reimburse Clayson for costs he incurred while working on the subject property. Zebe appealed, arguing that the district court erred because Zebe neither requested Clayson's performance nor received any benefit as a result of Clayson's work on the property. Zebe asked the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the matter for entry of judgment in their favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that assignment was silent as to consideration. It did not address whether Clayson was to be reimbursed for the expenses he had previously incurred or whether the assignment was a gratuitous act by Clayson. Therefore, the Court held that the district court did not err in finding an implied-in-fact contract.

Defendant Roberta Shore retained attorney third-party Defendant Nicholas Bokides to represent her in her divorce from William Shore. Pursuant to the divorce decree, William took all interest in the couple's business, Bear River Equipment, Inc., a farm equipment dealership. Roberta had instructed Bokides to provide notice to McCormick International USA, Inc, a Bear River creditor, that she would no longer personally guarantee its advances. Bokides never provided the notice, and McCormick sued Roberta to enforce the guarantee. Roberta brought a third party complaint against Bokides for malpractice. Bokides did not deny the malpractice claim, but alleged that Roberta failed to mitigate her damages because she did not seek to enforce the divorce decree’s mandate that William hold her harmless from all Bear River debts. Bokides appealed the trial court's judgment in Roberta's favor. Roberta cross-appealed the district court's determination that her damages were limited to advances made after entry of the divorce decree. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed: "substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the district court's finding that Roberta reasonably concluded that William was judgment proof and that it would therefore be futile to enforce the divorce decree against him. An implicit corollary of that finding is the finding that McCormick could not successfully seek compensation from William. Thus substantial, competent evidence supports the district court’s determination of the extent of Roberta's damages."

Defendant-Respondent High Mark Development, LLC owned a commercial building located in the City of Ammon. In 2006, it had leased a portion of the building to The Children's Center, Inc., for a period of ten years. In 2007, High Mark listed the real property for sale through its realtor. Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas O'Shea, a resident of California, learned of the property through a realtor friend in Boise. Appellant and his wife were trustees of the "Thomas and Anne O'Shea Trust u/d/t Dated November 2, 1998," which they had formed to protect their assets and provide for their children. They decided to purchase the real property. The Trust entered into a real estate contract agreeing to purchase the property from Defendant High Mark for $3.7 million. The sale closed late 2007. The Children's Center made no payments to Plaintiffs after they acquired the property. Shortly thereafter, the Children's Center vacated the property, and went out of business. Plaintiffs filed suit against High Mark and two of its principals, Gordon, Benjamin and Jared Arave arguing Defendants had induced them to acquire the property by providing false information that the Children's Center was current in its payments of rent and/or concealing or failing to disclose that the Center had failed to pay all rent due under the lease. Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract and fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure against all of the Defendants, but the issues were narrowed after cross motions for summary judgment. The case was tried to a jury on the issues of: High Mark's breach of contract; High Mark's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; Gordon Arave's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; and Benjamin Arave's alleged fraud by nondisclosure. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all of those Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied. The Plaintiffs then timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury could reasonably have determined that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were damaged by the breach and that they failed to prove that the breach of contract caused any damages. In addition, the jury could have found that the breach did not cause any damages because the Plaintiffs did not have the right to terminate the contract for the misrepresentation in an estoppel certificate. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the breach of contract claim.

At issue in this case was a district court's grant of a motion for voluntary dismissal of a suit filed by Fern Peterson against Cecil and Yu Wen Davis, Kevin and Sherri Murray, David Lawrence and Private Wilderness, LLC (collectively, Private Wilderness). The issues arose from Peterson's attempt to sell property to the Davises, Murray and Lawrence. Private Wilderness asserted an easement over the property. Ultimately the case ended with the dismissal of a third-party complaint filed by Private Wilderness against Robert and Nancy Peterson (the Petersons). In resolving the appeal, the Supreme Court addressed issues raised by Private Wilderness concerning whether the district court erred when it concluded there was no prevailing party when it granted the voluntary dismissal. The Court also addressed the Petersons' cross-appeal, in which they argued that the district court erred in denying their motion for reconsideration of their I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motion to dismiss on the basis that it was moot, and by not addressing their pending summary judgment motion at the time of dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated in part and remanded, upholding the district court's discretion concluding no prevailing party, but found the court erred by denying the motion for reconsideration.

As a team building exercise, Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Morrison's employer wanted him and his coworkers to participate in a program at Defendant-Respondent Northwest Nazarene University that included a climbing wall activity. Several days prior to doing so, Plaintiff's employer required him to sign an agreement prepared by the University holding it harmless from any loss or damage he might incur due to the University's negligence or that of its employees. This appeal arose from the district court's grant of summary judgment that held Plaintiff's action for personal injuries suffered when he fell from the climbing wall was barred by the hold harmless agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claim because he was barred by the hold harmless agreement.