Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Harley Channelview Properties, LLC (Channelview) and Harley Marine Gulf, LLC (Harley Marine) over a property lease agreement. The original lease, signed in 2011, included a provision granting Harley Marine an option to purchase the property. In 2012, Channelview bought the property, subject to the Harley Marine lease. Over time, Channelview concluded that Harley Marine's purchase option had expired, and it invested $15 million in property improvements. However, Harley Marine believed the purchase option was still valid and attempted to buy the property in 2020. When Channelview refused to transfer the property, Harley Marine sued for breach of contract and sought specific performance.The trial court granted Harley Marine's motion for partial summary judgment on its contract claim and ordered Channelview to transfer the property title to Harley Marine within 30 days, even though the court acknowledged that its ruling was "interlocutory" and other issues remained unresolved. Channelview appealed, arguing that the trial court's order was equivalent to a temporary injunction.The court of appeals dismissed Channelview's appeal, ruling that the trial court had granted "permanent" relief, and thus the order was not a "temporary" injunction from which an appeal could be taken. Channelview then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that the trial court's order had the character and function of a temporary injunction because it required immediate action based on an interim ruling that a claim had merit and was effective during the pendency of the suit. The court noted that the order was "interlocutory," not final, and the trial court could modify it at any time until final judgment. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal. View "HARLEY CHANNELVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC v. HARLEY MARINE GULF, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over oil and gas interests between Spottie, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and several other Nevada corporations and a limited liability company. Spottie alleged that the defendants had wrongfully claimed title to these interests, which were once owned by Edward Davis, who had formed Spottie as a holding company. The defendants countered that they had entered into an agreement with Davis to acquire these interests, and that Davis and Spottie had transferred the disputed interests to one of the defendants via an assignment in 2016.The district court dismissed several of Spottie's claims, leaving only a quiet title claim and a claim for unjust enrichment. After a three-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the assignment from Davis and Spottie to one of the defendants was valid. The court also found that Spottie had erroneously received revenue from the disputed interests and awarded damages to the defendants.Spottie appealed the decision, arguing that the district court had erred in its ownership determination, its rejection of Spottie's laches defense, its binding of a non-party to the judgment, and its award of attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part, concluding that the district court did not err in its ownership determination and its award of attorney fees. However, it reversed in part, finding that the court had erred in awarding costs for non-legal expenses. The case was remanded for the court to recalculate its cost award and to consider the defendants' request for additional attorney fees and legal costs. View "SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a contract zone agreement that would have allowed development on a property in Saco, Maine. The property owners, Amarjit Singh Dhillon and Ajinder Kaur, appealed from a lower court's grant of partial summary judgment to Michael Dahlem, who owns neighboring property and challenged the contract zone agreement. Dahlem cross-appealed from the court's dismissal of his Rule 80B appeal and denial of his motion to reconsider that dismissal, and from the court's denial of summary judgment on two counts in his complaint.The lower court had granted summary judgment to Dahlem on several counts, declaring that the 2017 agreement became null and void in 2019 and thereafter could not be amended, was invalid and unlawful for noncompliance with the City’s contract zoning ordinance, and was inconsistent with Maine’s Mandatory Shoreland Zoning statute and therefore preempted and invalid. The court denied summary judgment to all parties on the count of whether the 2021 agreement was compatible with the City’s comprehensive plan.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision in all respects and dismissed Dahlem’s cross-appeal as moot. The court held that Dahlem properly challenged the 2021 agreement by asserting claims for declaratory relief, that the 2017 agreement became null and void on November 20, 2019, and could not thereafter be amended, that the 2021 agreement was invalid and unlawful under the City’s contract zoning ordinance, and that the 2021 agreement was preempted by the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning provisions. View "Dahlem v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

In September 2019, Eleticia Garcia hired Ponagansett 2 LLC, doing business as Peter Bibby Heating & Air, to perform mechanical work on her property. The parties signed two contracts, one for the installation of gas lines, water heaters, and boilers, and another for the installation of baseboards. However, Garcia failed to make the agreed-upon payments, leading Ponagansett to file a mechanics' lien against her property. When Garcia did not respond to the complaint, the Superior Court entered a default judgment in favor of Ponagansett.The Superior Court denied Garcia's subsequent motions to vacate the entry of default, to file a counterclaim out of time, to quash the mechanics' lien, and to file an oral proof of claim. Ponagansett then filed a motion for entry of default judgment against Garcia and a petition for attorneys' fees. The Superior Court granted Ponagansett's request to enforce the mechanics' lien, awarded Ponagansett $20,000 plus interest, and granted attorneys' fees of $12,310.27.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Garcia argued that the mechanics' lien was unenforceable because Ponagansett failed to provide notice of a possible mechanics' lien as required by law. She also contended that the decisions of the hearing justice to award Ponagansett the full payment of $20,000 and exclude the admission of a mechanical permit were reversible errors. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that Garcia had waived her enforceability argument by failing to timely respond to Ponagansett's complaint. The court also found no error in the hearing justice's award of damages and exclusion of the mechanical permit. View "Ponagansett 2 LLC v. Eleticia Garcia" on Justia Law

In 2003, the City of Chicago contracted with Walsh Construction Company to manage the construction of a canopy and curtain wall system at O’Hare International Airport. Walsh subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to fabricate and install steel columns to support the wall and canopy. Several years into the project, the City discovered cracks in the welds of the steel columns and sued Walsh for breaching its contract. Walsh, in turn, sued LB Steel under its subcontract. Walsh also asked LB Steel’s insurers to defend it in the City’s lawsuit, but they never did. Walsh eventually secured a judgment against LB Steel, which led it to declare bankruptcy. Walsh then sued LB Steel’s insurers to recover the costs of defending against the City’s suit and indemnification for any resulting losses.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff insurers on both issues. The court reasoned that, because the physical damage at issue was limited to LB Steel’s own products, it did not constitute “property damage” as that term appears in the policies, thereby precluding coverage. As for the duty to defend, the court determined that the Insurers had none, because the City’s underlying claims did not implicate potential coverage under LB Steel’s policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the defects in the welds and columns do not constitute “property damage” under LB Steel’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The court also found that the insurers had no duty to defend Walsh in the City’s underlying suit. The court further affirmed the district court's denial of Walsh’s request for sanctions under § 155. View "St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company v. Walsh Construction Company" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two neighboring landowners, David W. Axelrod, as Trustee of the David W. Axelrod Family Trust, and Reid Limited Partnership (RLP), over real property and easement rights. Axelrod purchased a property in Teton County in 2003, which was not accessible by road. Michael Reid, who owned and operated an organic dairy farm on land owned by RLP, leased land adjacent to Axelrod's property. Axelrod built an access road through the RLP property, which led to a series of disputes between the parties. In 2017, Axelrod filed a lawsuit seeking clarification about his easement rights. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which required Axelrod to build a new road along a different easement and Reid to pay for the installation of a cattle guard. However, disagreements arose over the placement and cost of the cattle guard, leading to further litigation.The district court granted Axelrod's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Axelrod did not have an express easement for use of the RLP Easement, but he did have an easement by estoppel. The court also found that Reid had breached the settlement agreement by failing to pay for the cattle guard. Reid appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision in part and vacated it in part. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Reid and the dismissal of RLP's counterclaims for conversion and violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also affirmed the judgment on Axelrod's breach of contract claim and the refusal to allow amendment of the pleadings to add Reid Family Limited Partnership as a party. However, the court vacated the dismissal of RLP's trespass claim and the award of attorney fees to Axelrod against RLP, remanding for further proceedings. View "Axelrod v. Reid Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

A real estate developer, Audthan LLC, and property owner, Nick & Duke, LLC (N & D), entered into a 40-year lease agreement in 2013 to replace a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel with a mixed-use residential and commercial building. The agreement required approval from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) due to a previous harassment finding against the property. The lease required Audthan to obtain a "cure" agreement from HPD and develop low-income housing on the site. However, disagreements arose over the terms of the cure agreement and the parties disputed who was at fault for the termination of the ground lease.The Supreme Court dismissed parts of Audthan's complaint, including a claim for anticipatory repudiation based on N & D's refusal to sign any cure agreement, and rejected N & D's motion to dismiss the remaining portions of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that Audthan could not seek separate redress for anticipatory repudiation based on the same conduct that allegedly breached the contract in 2015.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' dismissal of Audthan's claim for anticipatory repudiation. The court held that a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation could both be stated based on the facts at the pleading stage. The court found that N & D's refusal to sign the 2015 cure agreement could be seen as falling short of its contractual requirements without amounting to a total breach. However, N & D's 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement could be seen as a clear and unequivocal statement that N & D would never perform its obligations, constituting a repudiation of the contract. The court modified the Appellate Division's order by denying N & D's motion to dismiss in part, affirmed the order as modified, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation brought a suit against the United States, alleging various claims concerning water rights and water-related infrastructure. The Tribe claimed that the United States breached duties of trust by mismanaging water rights and infrastructure held by the United States and operated for the Tribe, breached contracts with the Tribe, and effected unconstitutional takings of the Tribe’s property. The Claims Court dismissed all the breach of trust claims, held that one breach of contract claim was barred by a 2012 settlement agreement, and found the remaining breach of contract and takings claims time barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the Claims Court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the Winters doctrine and the 1899 Act did not sufficiently establish trust duties to support Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction with respect to the Tribe’s claims that the United States has a duty to construct new infrastructure and secure new water for the Tribe. However, the Court found that the 1906 Act imposes trust duties on the United States sufficient to support a claim at least with respect to management of existing water infrastructure. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of one breach of contract claim, vacated and remanded another, and affirmed the dismissal of the takings claims. View "UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH & OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION v. US" on Justia Law

Vandercar, L.L.C. entered into a $36 million purchase contract for the Millennium Hotel in Cincinnati and then assigned its interest in the hotel to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority. The agreement stipulated that the Port would pay Vandercar a $5 million redevelopment fee if the Port issued bonds to redevelop the hotel within a year of its acquisition. The Port acquired the hotel and issued acquisition bonds, but it denied that the bonds were for redevelopment of the hotel, so it refused to pay the redevelopment fee. Vandercar sued the Port for breach of contract for failing to pay the redevelopment fee and also moved for prejudgment interest.The trial court found that Vandercar was entitled to the redevelopment fee and granted Vandercar’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, the trial court denied Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest, concluding that prejudgment interest could not be imposed on the Port since it was “an arm/instrumentality of the state.” Both parties appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decisions.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The court held that the Port, a port authority created under R.C. 4582.22(A), is not exempt from the application of R.C. 1343.03(A), which entitles a creditor to prejudgment interest when the creditor receives a judgment for the payment of money due under a contract. Therefore, the Port may be held liable to pay prejudgment interest. The court remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest under the correct standard. View "Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Sharon Ann Koch, a member of the Buffalo Trail Ranch subdivision, and Melissa R. Gray, who was purchasing a tract in the subdivision. Koch, along with other members and the developer of the subdivision, Rocky Mountain Timberlands, Inc. (RMT), sued Gray for allegedly violating the subdivision's restrictive covenants by placing garbage, junk, and other prohibited items on her property. The covenants, filed by RMT in 2008, also required the formation of a road maintenance association, which was never established.The District Court of Albany County dismissed all claims against Gray, applying the contractual "first to breach" doctrine. The court reasoned that RMT, by failing to form the road maintenance association, was the first to breach the covenants. Therefore, it was impossible to hold Gray to the covenants. Koch appealed this decision, arguing that she had no contractual relationship with Gray, and thus the "first to breach" doctrine should not apply to her claim.The Supreme Court of Wyoming agreed with Koch. It found that the "first to breach" doctrine, which is based on a contractual relationship, could not be applied as there was no contract between Koch and Gray. The court also rejected the lower court's conclusion that RMT's breach of the covenants rendered them inapplicable to Gray. The court found no legal basis for applying the "first to breach" doctrine to a third party's enforcement of covenants. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Koch v. Gray" on Justia Law