Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Zavadils alleged they loaned Jon and Hollie Rud $32,000 under an April 2008 verbal agreement. The loan was to be repaid when the Ruds sold their home or within six months. When the Ruds failed to repay the loan, the Zavadils agreed to renew and extend the original verbal loan agreement. In 2009, the Ruds executed a third mortgage on their property in favor of the Zavadils, and on a few months later, the Ruds executed a promissory note for $32,000 plus interest due and payable to the Zavadils a year later. The Ruds divorced in June 2009, between executions of the third mortgage and the promissory note. The Zavadils sued the Ruds to foreclose the third mortgage after the Ruds failed to make all payments required under the promissory note. Wells Fargo Bank subsequently brought an action against the Ruds, the Zavadils and others to foreclose its first position mortgage on the property. The Zavadils admitted their third mortgage was subordinate to the bank's mortgage on the property and stipulated to dismissal of their foreclosure action against the Ruds. Jon Rud appealed the grant of summary judgment that awarded Zavadils $33,490.19 in their action to recover on the promissory note. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in ruling no genuine issues of material fact existed and the Zavadils were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Zavadil v. Rud" on Justia Law

Roger Sundsbak, George Bitz and Northern Livestock Auction appealed a district court judgment granting Craig Anderson's motion for summary judgment and denying Northern Livestock's motion to amend their counterclaim. Anderson was First Western Bank & Trust's assignee. Northern Livestock argued the district court erred as a matter of law by entering summary judgment in favor of Anderson, by failing to enter summary judgment in favor of Northern Livestock's counterclaim for specific performance and by failing to provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow judicial review of its decision denying Northern Livestock's cross-motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Anderson v. Zimbelman" on Justia Law

From 1998 through 2009, Keith Jensen owned a cattle feedlot in South Dakota. Jensen did not personally operate the feedlot but used it for his cattle-brokering business. Jensen leased the feedlot to Arden Sieh under a five-year written lease agreement. The written lease expired in 2003, but Sieh continued to operate the feedlot under an oral lease agreement with Jensen. While operating the feedlot, Sieh purchased cattle feed from Forbes Equity Exchange, Inc. ("FEE"), a North Dakota cooperative grain elevator. In 2010, FEE filed a complaint against Sieh and Jensen for $166,015.18 worth of corn purchased by Sieh on an open account that was allegedly never paid. FEE alleged Jensen's cattle consumed the feed. In March 2011, FEE withdrew its claim against Sieh for the unpaid feed. In exchange, Sieh assigned to FEE all potential claims he had against Jensen for cattle feed and care services that exceeded Sieh's rent payments. FEE amended its complaint, and raised Sieh's claims for cattle-care costs in addition to its original suit against Jensen for unpaid cattle feed. Jensen filed a third-party complaint against Sieh for the collection of past debts, including bounced checks, missed rent payments, unpaid loans and interest, missing cattle, damaged feedlot property, and other financial obligations arising from Sieh's operation of Jensen's feedlot. Jensen ultimately lost on his contract claims, and he appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in denying Jensen's claim for an offset or in admitting evidence. The Court also concluded that the court did not err in finding in favor of Forbes Equity Exchange on its assigned claim against Jensen. View "Forbes Equity Exchange, Inc. v. Jensen" on Justia Law

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