Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Manuel and Melissa Rose purchased property from the F & M Martino Family Trust, with Fred and Michelle Martino acting as trustees. The warranty deed did not reference a previously recorded Boundary Line Agreement (BLA) that established a barbed wire fence as the boundary between the Roses' property and the neighboring property owned by Donald and Marylee Meliza. The Melizas later obtained a survey showing the fence was on the Roses' property and filed a quiet title action for the disputed strip of land. The Roses sought defense from the Martinos, who refused, leading the Roses to file a third-party action for breach of warranty of title and breach of the covenant of seisin.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Martinos, finding that the BLA was a "matter of record" and thus excluded from the warranty deed. The court also denied the Martinos' request for attorney fees. The Roses appealed the summary judgment decision, and the Martinos cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's summary judgment decision, holding that the warranty deed's language was clear and unambiguous and did not exclude the BLA. The court found that the Martinos breached the covenant of seisin by not owning the entire property described in the deed and breached the warranty of title by failing to defend the Roses in the quiet title action. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny attorney fees to the Martinos, as the case did not involve a commercial transaction and the warranty deed did not contain an attorney fee provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Roses were awarded costs on appeal. View "Rose v. Martino" on Justia Law

Phillip and Jodi Peterson hired Brandon Coverdell Construction, Inc. (BCC) to perform work on their home following a hailstorm. The Petersons were dissatisfied with the quality of BCC's work, while BCC was unhappy with the Petersons' partial payment. Both parties accused each other of breaching their written agreement and filed lawsuits in the county court. The county court ruled in favor of BCC, finding that the Petersons committed the first material breach.The Petersons appealed to the District Court for Douglas County but failed to file a statement of errors. They obtained a continuance to amend the bill of exceptions in the county court. The district court eventually found that the county court had committed plain error by entering judgment in favor of BCC, concluding that the written agreement was an unenforceable illusory contract. BCC then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in considering the supplemental bill of exceptions, which was not properly part of the record. The Supreme Court also determined that the county court did not commit plain error. The county court's decision to focus on the issues presented by the parties, rather than the enforceability of the contract, did not result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case with directions to affirm the county court's judgment. View "Peterson v. Brandon Coverdell Constr." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between partners in a limited partnership formed to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Boston. The financing and structure of the project were driven by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes private investment in affordable housing through tax credits. The partnership agreement included a right of first refusal (ROR) for the nonprofit general partner to purchase the property at a below-market price after the compliance period.In the Superior Court, the judge ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, concluding that the investor limited partner, AMTAX, did not have a consent right over a sale to the nonprofit general partner under the ROR agreement. However, the judge also ruled that the purchase price under the ROR agreement must include the limited partners' exit tax liability. The judge dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims due to lack of evidentiary support or as a consequence of these rulings.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that AMTAX's consent was not required for the preliminary steps leading to a sale under the ROR agreement. The court also held that the limited partners' exit taxes were "attributable to" the sale of the property and must be included in the purchase price. The court found that the notice of consent rights recorded by AMTAX was accurate and did not constitute slander of title or tortious interference. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, slander of title, and violation of G. L. c. 93A were dismissed. The judgment was affirmed. View "Tenants' Development Corporation v. Amtax Holdings 227, LLC" on Justia Law

Two lessors, Elizabeth Franklin and Cynthia Peironnet, owned mineral interests in a tract of land in Louisiana. In 2007, Regions Bank, managing their interests, mistakenly extended a lease for the entire tract instead of a portion. Advances in drilling technology increased the tract's value, and the lessors sued Matador Resources, the lessee, to invalidate the extension. Meanwhile, they entered into a new lease with Petrohawk Energy Corporation, contingent on the invalidation of the Matador lease. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the Matador lease, preventing the lessors from benefiting from the more favorable Petrohawk lease.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a bench trial in 2021, finding Regions liable for breach of contract. On remand, the court considered extrinsic evidence to determine the lease's royalty provision, concluding it should be based on gross proceeds. The court awarded damages accordingly, including prejudgment interest on past losses and discounted future losses to present value.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the lease conveyed a gross proceeds royalty and the admission of extrinsic evidence. However, it reversed the district court's award of royalty damages plus prejudgment interest. The appellate court instructed the district court to consider actual loss data for past years when recalculating damages and to award prejudgment interest from the date each item of past damages was incurred. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these instructions. View "Franklin v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law

Duane and Melody Remington purchased a campground and later discovered various defects on the property. They sued the seller, Keith Grimm, and the real estate agent, Bryan Iverson, alleging multiple claims including failure to disclose defects, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Remingtons claimed that Iverson and Grimm did not provide a required property disclosure statement and misrepresented the financial condition of the campground.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Iverson, determining that a property disclosure statement was not required because the sale was a commercial transaction. The court did not specifically address the common law claims of nondisclosure against Iverson. The Remingtons appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that a property disclosure statement was required for the living quarters of the campground, which constituted residential real property. The court affirmed the lower court's decision that a disclosure statement was not required for the non-residential aspects of the campground. The case was remanded to determine whether Iverson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform the Remingtons that Grimm was required to provide a property disclosure statement for the living quarters.The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of Iverson’s direct liability, concluding that the Remingtons failed to establish that Iverson had actual knowledge of the alleged defects. The court dismissed Iverson’s notice of review regarding attorney fees and costs due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Remington v. Iverson" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over an unrecorded parking agreement related to an office building, hotel, and parking garage in downtown San Antonio. The agreement, executed in 2005, reserved parking spaces in the garage for the office building's occupants and was intended to run with the land. However, it was not recorded in the county's real property records. In 2006, HEI San Antonio Hotel, LP purchased the garage and hotel, financing the purchase through a loan from Merrill Lynch, which was aware of the parking agreement. In 2008, Cypress Real Estate Advisors, through its entity CRVI Crowne Plaza, purchased a note from Merrill Lynch but did not inquire about the parking agreement despite having access to relevant documents.The trial court ruled that the parking agreement was an enforceable easement and rejected the lender's and its affiliate's bona fide purchaser defenses. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas agreed that the agreement was an easement but concluded that the lender took the loan without notice of the easement, thus sheltering its affiliate from enforcement.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with both lower courts that the parking agreement is an easement. However, it disagreed with the Court of Appeals regarding the notice issue. The Supreme Court concluded that both the lender and its affiliated owner had sufficient notice to remove any bona fide purchaser protection. Therefore, the easement was enforceable against the affiliated owner.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "425 SOLEDAD, LTD. v. CRVI RIVERWALK HOSPITALITY, LLC" on Justia Law

Eiden Construction, LLC (Eiden) entered into a subcontract with Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC (Hogan) for earthwork and utilities on a school construction project. Hogan sued Eiden and its bonding company, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), for breach of contract, claiming Eiden failed to complete its work, including draining sewage lagoons and constructing a fire pond. Eiden counterclaimed for unpaid work, arguing it was not responsible for draining the lagoons and that Hogan did not comply with the subcontract’s notice and opportunity to cure provisions. AMCO argued it was not liable under the performance bond because Eiden did not breach the subcontract and Hogan did not provide proper notice.The District Court of Uinta County found for Hogan on the claim regarding the sewage lagoons but not on other claims, ruling AMCO was not liable under the bond due to lack of notice. Eiden and Hogan both appealed. Eiden argued the court erred in finding it responsible for draining the lagoons and in awarding Hogan damages billed to an associated company. Hogan contended the court erred in not awarding damages for other work and in its calculation of prejudgment interest.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held Eiden breached the subcontract by not draining the lagoons and that Hogan was entitled to recover costs for supplementing Eiden’s work. The court found Eiden’s late completion of the septic system justified Hogan’s directive to expedite lagoon drainage. It also ruled Hogan properly paid the supplemental contractors, despite invoices being sent to an associated company. The court rejected Hogan’s claims for additional damages, concluding Eiden complied with the notice to cure provisions for the fire pond and other work. The court also upheld the lower court’s calculation of prejudgment interest, applying the offset before calculating interest. View "Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC v. Eiden Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

A landlord, JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC (JJD), owns a shopping center in Elk Grove, California, and leased space to Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (Jo-Ann). The lease included a cotenancy provision allowing Jo-Ann to pay reduced rent if the number of anchor tenants or overall occupancy fell below a specified threshold. When two anchor tenants closed, Jo-Ann invoked this provision and paid reduced rent for about 20 months until the occupancy threshold was met again.The Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Jo-Ann, finding the cotenancy provision to be an alternative performance rather than a penalty. The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed this decision, distinguishing the case from a previous ruling in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc., which found a similar provision to be an unenforceable penalty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the validity of the cotenancy provision. The court held that the provision was a valid form of alternative performance, allowing JJD a realistic choice between accepting lower rent or taking steps to increase occupancy. The court found that the provision did not constitute an unreasonable penalty under California Civil Code section 1671, nor did it result in a forfeiture under section 3275. The court emphasized that contracts should be enforced as written, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding the cotenancy provision as a valid and enforceable part of the lease agreement. View "JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC" on Justia Law

Ms. Wilson owned a property in the District of Columbia, which she subdivided into three lots: 825, 826, and 827. She sold Lot 826 to Ntaky Management in 2009 and Lot 825 to Ms. Lumbih in 2010. The deed for Lot 826 described it as measuring twenty feet by forty feet, while the deed for Lot 825 described it as thirty-eight feet in length, based on an informal survey by Vyfhuis & Associates. This created a disputed area of eight feet between the properties. Ms. Lumbih installed an HVAC unit and deck in this disputed area. In 2018, Ntaky asked Ms. Lumbih to remove these installations, but she did not comply, leading Ntaky to sue her.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a non-jury trial and ruled that Ntaky owned the disputed area and could remove the encroachments at Ms. Lumbih’s expense. The court also denied Ms. Lumbih’s breach-of-contract claim against Ms. Wilson and her claim for implied indemnity, which sought to hold Ms. Wilson responsible for the costs associated with removing the encroachments.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding Ntaky’s ownership of the disputed area and the removal of the encroachments. However, it vacated the denial of Ms. Lumbih’s breach-of-contract claim against Ms. Wilson, finding that the trial court did not address whether Ms. Wilson breached her duty to convey a property thirty-eight feet in length. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this issue. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ms. Lumbih’s claim for implied indemnity, as she failed to identify a non-contractual duty of care owed by Ms. Wilson. View "Lumbih v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In 2014, Casey Moyer entered into an agreement with Doug Lasher Construction, Inc. for the construction and purchase of a new home, which was substantially completed in November 2014. Over the next six-and-a-half years, Moyer repeatedly informed Lasher Construction about issues with the home, particularly water leakage, and received assurances that the issues would be fixed. However, the problems persisted, and Moyer and Caitlin Bower filed suit against Lasher Construction in November 2021, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Lasher Construction, ruling that all claims were time-barred under Idaho Code sections 5-241(b) and 5-216, which require that claims arising out of a contract for the construction of real property be brought within five years of the final completion of construction. The court also found that the Idaho Consumer Protection Act claims were time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 48-619. The court rejected the homeowners' arguments for equitable estoppel and the repair doctrine, concluding that they failed to show that Lasher Construction prevented them from pursuing their claims within the statutory period.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court reaffirmed that the repair doctrine is not available in Idaho and upheld the district court's conclusion that the homeowners failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel. The court also agreed that the text messages and the July 2, 2021, response to the NORA demand did not constitute enforceable independent contracts. Lasher Construction was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Moyer v. Lasher Construction, Inc." on Justia Law