Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case involved a property dispute between the parties over easements and right-of-ways on plaintiffs' property. Defendant contended that the tort claims against it were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that the declaratory judgment against it was unwarranted. The court held that plaintiffs' common-law tort claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and the estoppel effect of the alleged fraudulent concealment ended in December 2002. Because plaintiffs did not file suit until more than two years after this date, their claims were time-barred. The court agreed that claims for declaratory judgment were moot because defendant had removed its cable lines from plaintiffs' properties prior to trial. Accordingly, the court granted defendant's petition for review and reversed the court of appeals' judgment.

Petitioner Eleanor Oakes owned a 7/8 undivided interest in a 20-acre parcel of land in Council, while Respondents David and Sine Holly owned a 1/8 undivided interest in the property. The parties went to court to partition the property, and each agreed to submit up to three partition proposals for the court’s selection after it heard evidence about the choices. The superior court selected one of Petitioner's proposals, and she hired a surveyor to implement the division of the property. The survey revealed a significant error in the map presented to the superior court of the selected proposal. The error resulted in the Hollys acquiring more river frontage than Petitioner had intended in her proposal which was selected by the superior court. Petitioner moved to amend the proposal, but the Hollys urged that the selected proposal be implemented as surveyed. The superior court concluded that under the doctrine of mutual mistake, Petitioner bore the risk of the drafting mistake in her proposals, and it enforced the proposal with the drafting error. But because the error in the property description did not occur in the formation of contract, the Supreme Court in its review concluded that the doctrine of mutual mistake was inapplicable. "Instead, the error occurred during the evidentiary hearing and formed a mistaken factual premise for the trial court's decision." The Court therefore remanded the case back to the superior court to determine whether it was appropriate to grant relief for mistake, and if so, to repartition the property in compliance with state law.

Camelot brought this action against its tenant, AMC Showplace Theatres, seeking a declaration that section 3.4 of their lease was an option to renew if the parties agree on new, negotiated terms rather than an option to extend on the terms contained in their existing lease. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court granted Camelot's motion. The court affirmed and held that the terms of the option period were not readily ascertainable and that section 3.4 was an option to renew that required new, negotiated terms.

Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust filed a foreclosure action against Defendant-Appellant Dennis Brumbaugh. Appellant and his wife Debra executed a note and mortgage with Long Beach Mortgage Company in 2002. In 2006, the Brumbaughs entered into a loan modification agreement with U.S. Bank, N.A., successor trustee to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Several months later, the Brumbaughs divorced, and in 2008, Debra executed a quitclaim deed to Defendant. Defendant defaulted on the note in 2009, and the bank shortly thereafter filed its petition to foreclose. Attached to the petition was a copy of the note, mortgage, loan modification agreement, and copies of statements of judgments and liens by other entities. Appellee claimed it was the present holder of the note and mortgage having received due assignment through assignments of record or conveyance via mortgage servicing transfer. The Appellant answered, denying Appellee owned any interest in the note and mortgage, and the copies attached to the petition were not the same as those he signed. He claimed Appellee lacked capacity to sue and the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. He also denied being in default and asserted the Appellee/servicing agent caused the alleged default. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that there were significant questions of fact such that summary judgment was not an appropriate disposition of the case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case concerned a family dispute over ownership of what had been the family home in Woburn. At issue was whether a party could establish that she lacked the capacity to contract, thus making the contract voidable by her, in the absence of evidence that she suffered from a medically diagnosed, long-standing mental illness or defect. The court concluded that its evolving standard of contractual incapacity did not in all cases require proof that a party's claimed mental illness or defect was of some significant duration or that it was permanent, progressive, or degenerative; but, without medical evidence or expert testimony that the mental condition interfered with the party's understanding of the transaction, or her ability to act reasonably in relation to it, the evidence would not be sufficient to support a conclusion of incapacity. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to support a determination of incapacity where Susan, among other things, understood at the time that she was participating in a mediation to discuss settlement of the lawsuit, was aware that the subject of the mediation was to resolve the dispute regarding the family home, participated in the mediation, and listened to the arguments of counsel. Therefore, the court vacated the motion judge's order and remanded for entry of an order enforcing the settlement agreement.

The Faigins owned a lot in the Diamante subdivision. Diamante asserted a lien on the Faigins' lot for failure to pay monthly membership dues and thereafter filed a complaint in foreclosure on the lot. The Faigins filed a motion for class certification so that they could be sued as representative parties on behalf of all lot owners in the Diamante subdivisions. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the circuit court abused its discretion by basing part of its decision on the question of commonality upon the ability of the proposed class to withstand a Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, (2) the element of commonality was lacking in this case where there were only seven lot owners who were in foreclosure and the Faigins' defenses to the complaint were not common to the overwhelming majority of the proposed class, and (3) because Ark. R. Civ. P. 23 requires that all elements be present before class certification is appropriate, and at least one element was lacking here, class certification was appropriately denied.

Plaintiff and Defendant executed an agreement in which Plaintiff agreed to purchase from Defendant an unimproved parcel of real property. The agreement included a due diligence clause, which provided Plaintiff with a ninety-day due-diligence period in which perform inspections and inquiries. After the due-diligence period had expired and the parties had not closed on the property, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking specific performance of its agreement with Defendant as well as damages. Defendant counterclaimed, seeking declaratory relief that the agreement be declared null and void and asserting a claim for breach of contract. The trial justice granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's complaint and Defendant's counterclaim, finding it had been Plaintiff's burden to contact Defendant to close and that Plaintiff had failed to do so without any explanation for its lack of diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in its judgment where Plaintiff presented no evidence either explaining its silence or supporting its contention that it was, after the due-diligence period, ready, willing, and able to perform under the contract.

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (JWR) sought a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court to record certain filings without the payment of a recording tax. Walter Energy, JWR's parent company, acquired Western Coal Corporation of Canada. As part of the acquisition, Walter entered into a credit agreement with Morgan Stanley, which required Walter's subsidiaries to execute contingent guaranties of Walter's financing debt in the event Walter defaulted. JWR secured its guaranty of Walter Energy's financing debt by executing mortgages on its real and leasehold properties. Also as part of the credit agreement, JWR was required to record the mortgages in the probate offices in the counties in which the properties were located. When JWR sought to record the mortgages and related UCC filings in Tuscaloosa, the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court refused to record the documents unless JWR paid the recordation tax. The probate judge maintained that there was no statutory requirement that under Alabama law that the debt being secured be the mortgagor's debt, and as such, because JWR was recording its financing statements for Walter's debt, JWR was still responsible for paying the tax. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that JWR's liability was contingent on Walter's default, and JWR's contingent guaranty did not constitute an unqualified promise to pay Walter's indebtedness under the credit agreement. The Court found the contingent guaranty was not within the scope of the applicable statute, and accordingly, the Court granted JWR's petition and issued the writ.

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned a dispute between Petitioners Donia Townsend and several other home purchasers and Defendant Quadrant Corporation and its parent companies over an arbitration clause in the home purchasers' individual purchase contracts. Several years after the home purchases, Townsend and the other purchasers jointly filed suit in superior court against Quadrant alleging outrage, fraud, unfair business practices, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, rescission and breach of warranty. In support of these allegations, they claimed that Quadrant knowingly engaged in shoddy workmanship in building the homes, and that this resulted in serious construction defects that caused personal injuries relating to mold, pests, and poisonous gases. They claimed that the arbitration clause in their purchase agreements was unenforceable. The superior court denied Quadrant's motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's holding that the homeowners’ procedural unconscionability claim that pertained to the entire purchase contract, including the arbitration clause, was to be decided by an arbitrator.

In this consolidated appeal, three sets of landowners asserted claims against Arrington for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment relating to Arrington's failure to pay cash bonuses under oil and gas leases. The district court granted summary judgment to the landowners on the breach of contract claims and thereafter dismissed the landowners' other claims with prejudice on the landowners' motions. The court rejected the landowners' assertion that the lease agreements could be construed without considering the language of the bank drafts; the drafts' no-liability clause did not prevent enforcement of the lease agreements; Arrington entered into a binding contract with each respective landowner despite the drafts' no-liability clause; the lease approval language of the drafts was satisfied by Arrington's acceptance of the lease agreements in exchange for the signed bank drafts and as such, did not bar enforcement of the contracts; Arrington's admitted renunciation of the lease agreement for reasons unrelated to title precluded its defense to the enforceability of its contracts; Arrington's admission that it decided to dishonor all lease agreements in Phillips County for unrelated business reasons entitled the landowners to summary judgment; there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Arrington disapproved of the landowner's titles in good faith. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claims.