Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Laura Jean Entzel appealed a district court opinion that awarded her a partial refund of her prepaid rental fee, and an order denying her request for attorney fees. Entzel entered into a Boat Space Rental Agreement with Moritz Sport & Marine. Entzel pre-paid Moritz for use of a marina boat slip from May 2011 until October 2011. Entzel chose not to use the slip at the start of the agreement period. Due to the threat of an impending flood along the Missouri River shoreline, the city of Mandan contacted Moritz at the end of May, and informed Moritz that the City wanted Moritz to take precautionary action. Moritz notified Entzel that, because of potential flooding, all boats needed to be removed from the marina. Moritz never informed Entzel that her boat could be returned to the marina once the threat was gone, and as a result, Entzel did not use the slip during the contract period. However, other customers of Moritz began to use their slips in the marina beginning mid-June 2011 until freeze in. Entzel sued Moritz in small claims court alleging breach of contract and seeking to recover the slip rental fee. Moritz removed the action to district court, arguing a force majeure clause in the contract relieved Moritz from liability, and Entzel moved for attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court judgment's award of a refund to Entzel, because it held the force majeure clause of the parties' contract relieved Moritz of liability for nonperformance and allocated the risk of loss to Entzel. The Court affirmed the district court judgment's denial of Entzel's request for attorney fees. View "Entzel v. Moritz Sport & Marine" on Justia Law

Jeff Trosen appealed a district court judgment that dismissed his legal and equitable claims against Shirley Trosen and Brent Trosen. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court did not err by granting the Trosen's motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissing Jeff Trosen's legal claims. Further, the Supreme Court concluded the district court reached the right result with respect to Jeff Trosen's equitable claims, but for the wrong reason. View "Trosen v. Trosen" on Justia Law

Eugene and Charlene Guthmiller appealed a district court judgment finding an option agreement should have been honored, allowing Guthmiller Farms, LLP and Jeremy Guthmiller to each purchase by contract for deed an undivided one-half interest in specified lands. The Guthmillers argued on appeal: (1) that Guthmiller Farms did not have standing to pursue the action; (2) that consideration was invalid for the option contract; (3) that exercise of the option constituted a counteroffer; and (4) that the district court erred in considering evidence not disclosed prior to the hearing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Guthmiller Farms v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

James Leach, IDA Marketing Corporation, and IDA of Moorhead Corporation appealed a judgment holding them jointly and severally liable to Reed Danuser for claims involving Danuser's termination as president and chief executive officer of the corporations and Leach's breach of a fiduciary duty to Danuser and requiring IDA Moorhead to pay Danuser for loans he made to IDA Moorhead. Upon careful analysis of the inter-company agreements and facts presented at the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding: (1) James Leach was responsible for freezing out Danuser's interests in the corporations, which, as found by the court, involved more than just the wrongful termination of Danuser's employment; (2) Leach was not a party to a stock buy-sell agreement, and under the circumstances of this case as found by the district court involving the freeze out of Danuser's interests in the intertwined corporations, the court's determination of damages was not a misapplication of the law and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable; (3) both James Leach and IDA Moorhead gained from James Leach's actions, which were attributable to the corporation. The district court decided James Leach had control of the corporations when he breached his fiduciary duties to Danuser. Therefore, the district court did not misapply the law in deciding James Leach and the corporations were jointly and severally liable for Danuser's damages and the court's decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. View "Danuser v. IDA Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

Elden and Rita Linderkamp appealed a judgment that required Elden Linderkamp to pay Four Season's Healthcare Center, Inc. for nursing home care provided to his parents, invalidating a contract for deed and warranty deed conveying land from the parents to the Linderkamps, authorizing the parents' personal representative to administer the land in the probate of the parents' estates, and allowing the Linderkamps a net claim against the parents' estates. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the district court did not clearly err in finding there was no credible evidence of a claimed oral agreement for Earl Linderkamp to compensate Elden for improvements to the land as part of the consideration for the contract for deed and warranty deed and did not clearly err in finding there was no credible evidence to support Elden's claim he made improvements to the land as part of the consideration for the deeds. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court erred in declining to rule on an issue about all of the children's liability for their parents' nursing home debt under N.D.C.C. 14-09-10. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Four Seasons Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Linderkamp" on Justia Law

Tim Bloomquist appealed summary judgment entered in favor of Goose River Bank and Goose River Holding Company for breach of an alleged oral contract to loan money. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the alleged oral contract was barred by the statute of frauds. View "Bloomquist v. The Goose River Bank" on Justia Law

Janet L. Brash, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Larry R. Brash, appealed judgment entered after a bench trial that dismissed her action against William M. Gulleson. We affirm. In the mid-1980s, Dr. Brash began running cows on Gulleson's ranch under an oral agreement to operate on a "60/40 share basis." Gulleson provided care and feed and received 60 percent of the calf crop from Dr. Brash's cows, and Dr. Brash provided veterinarian services. In the fall of 1997, Dr. Brash supervised an inventory and evaluation of cows on the Gulleson ranch, which included cows owned by Gulleson, Dr. Brash, and two or three others who had agreements with Gulleson. At that time, Dr. Brash had 108 cows on the Gulleson ranch. In 2000, Dr. Brash and Gulleson executed a written Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Brashes agreed to furnish 130 cows presently situated on the Gulleson farm to be cared for by Gulleson, and Gulleson would in return give the Brashes 40 percent of the calf crop each year. After Dr. Brash's death in 2004, Janet Brash testified she became the sole owner of all 130 cows and their offspring; however, when she demanded the return of the estate's and her portion of the herd, Gulleson returned only seven cows. In 2005, Janet Brash brought this action against Gulleson, alleging Gulleson failed to comply with the Agreement executed in 2000. After trial, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, holding in part that Dr. Brash had failed to provide 130 cows as required under the contract, which constituted a failure of consideration, and that Janet Brash had failed to prove a breach of the agreement by Gulleson. The court dismissed Brash's claims with prejudice. Judgment was entered in June 2012. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding there was a failure of consideration in the performance of the Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement between the Brashes and Gulleson. View "Brash v. Gulleson" on Justia Law

Barbara McDermott appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding Kevin Pifer $80,957.07 in damages for unlawful interference with business, and several other orders issued by the district court in connection with these proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that a purchase option given to Pifer by her mother, Dorothy Bevan, was a valid and enforceable gift. Furthermore, the Court concluded the interference with business claim was properly presented to the jury, the evidence supports the jury verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion in its related rulings and orders. View "Pifer v. McDermott" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Schmitt appealed the dismissal of his claims against MeritCare Health System for defamation, tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, and violation of state antitrust law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations lacked merit, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims. View "Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System" on Justia Law

Steven Johnson appealed an order compelling discovery of his federal income tax returns, and a judgment canceling a contract for deed and dismissing his action for specific performance against Sandra Mark, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jeanne Johnson, and Stuart Johnson and Scott Johnson. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery, in canceling the contract for deed, and in dismissing the action for specific performance. View "Johnson v. Mark" on Justia Law