Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, who signed documents presented by her husband without reading them, sought damages and to rescind two mortgages ostensibly encumbering titles to her residence in Massachusetts and a retreat in Maine. Her husband allegedly misrepresented the nature of the documents, which were powers of attorney. She claims she did not receive documents required by the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635 and the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140D 10.1. The trial court dismissed, reasoning that notices to the husband were sufficient under the powers of attorney. The First Circuit vacated. The district court improperly made findings of fact on a motion to dismiss, in concluding that the powers of attorney suffered from identical scriveners' errors and should be read as if their expiration dates were May 31, 2009 (not 2008).

After Homeowners' house burned down, Homeowners' insurer denied coverage, stating that payment was not timely delivered, the money order was not signed, and the damaged house was the secondary house and Insurer's underwriting policies required insurance on the primary house also to be purchased through Insurer in order to have coverage in place for the secondary residence. Homeowners filed suit, asserting that no reasonable basis in fact or law existed for denial of the claim and seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that the loss was covered. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Insurer as genuine issues of material fact remained, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment.

The owners of Landmark Towers appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Green Tree Servicing, LLC (Green Tree), permitting Green Tree to vacate office space it subleased from the owners' tenant (DBSI). The lease agreements at issue in this case arose from a complex real estate transaction that DBSI and its affiliates commonly structured in order to generate revenue. DBSI, a tenant in common syndicator, or an affiliate - here DBSI Landmark, LLC - acquired commercial property and leased it to another affiliate - here DBSI Leaseco. The court found that, irrespective of 11 U.S.C. 365(h), principles of contract law dictated that DBSI Leaseco and Green Tree were no longer required to perform their obligations to each under the sublease. The court also found that the sublease contained promises between the tenants in common (TIC) and Green Tree via the attornment provision and therefore, the parties were in privity of contract regardless of their status as master landlord and sublessee. The court further found that the only surviving contractual interest in the sublease was the TIC's right to attornment, which was triggered only when the TIC succeeded to the interest of DBSI Leaseco. Therefore, the sublease did not require Green Tree to attorn to the TIC here.

Plaintiff Blanca Gonzalez, and Monserate Diaz purchased a home as tenants in common. Diaz borrowed the downpayment from Cityscape Mortgage Corporation (Cityscape) and executed a note. Plaintiff did not sign the note. Plaintiff and Diaz secured that loan by mortgaging their home to Cityscape. Over time, Plaintiff fell behind on the payments and U.S. Bank obtained a foreclosure judgment. The trial court ordered that the home be sold to satisfy the judgment. Before the sheriffâs sale, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation (Wilshire), U.S. Bankâs servicing agent. Plaintiff was represented by a Legal Services attorney who helped negotiate the agreement. Plaintiff missed four payments to Wilshire. A scheduled sheriffâs sale was cancelled when the parties entered into a second agreement. Plaintiff was contacted and dealt with directly; neither Wilshire nor U.S. Bank notified the Legal Services attorney. Although Plaintiff had not missed a single payment required by the second agreement, instead of dismissing the foreclosure action as promised, Wilshire sent a letter to Plaintiff noting that the second agreement was about to expire and that a new agreement needed to be negotiated to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiff contacted the Legal Services attorney. When the attorney questioned Wilshire, it could not explain how it had come to the arrears amount set in the second agreement, or why Plaintiff was not deemed current on the loan. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Wilshire and U.S. Bank engaged in deceptive and unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilshire and U.S. Bank, finding that the CFA did not apply to post-judgment settlement agreements entered into to stave off a foreclosure sale. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated plaintiffâs CFA claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the post-foreclosure-judgment agreements in this case constituted stand-alone extensions of credit. In fashioning and collecting on such a loan, a lender or its servicing agent cannot use unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA.

In 2002, Defendants decided to purchase, renovate, and resell a home located in Medford Lakes. According to their plan, Defendants Christopher Masso and John Torrence would finance the purchase; Defendant James Githens would perform the renovations; and Defendant real estate agent Jennifer Lynch would serve as the listing agent. Plaintiff Debra Lombardi viewed the home and made an offer. The sales contract, which was signed by Masso and Torrence, indicated that the house was being sold to Lombardi âas isâ and that any guarantees, unless set in writing, would be void. However, handwritten into the contract was a notation to âsee construction addendum attached.â That addendum reflected at least seventy repairs and renovations. At the closing, the house was nowhere near completion. Masso agreed to place money in escrow to ensure completion of the renovations. The escrow was to be held until which time the renovations would be completed. Against her realtorâs advice, Lombardi went ahead with the closing. Thereafter, the house remained unfinished and Plaintiff filed suit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, finding that Lombardi accepted the property âas is,â Defendants did not breach the contract, Defendants could not be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act, and they made no misrepresentations. Later the trial judge would write a letter to the parties, including the dismissed defendants, informing them that he was going to reconsider his order granting summary judgment and was scheduling a new hearing on the issue. The judge ultimately vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Appellate Division granted defendantsâ motion for leave to appeal, remanded to the trial court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ultimately reversed the trial court. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the Appellate Division correctly determined that the trial courtâs original summary judgment order dismissing several of the defendants was issued in error, the trial judge was well within his discretion in revisiting and vacating the summary judgment order.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on his claim of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. The district court held that plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment on two of the five elements necessary to sustain his claim. The court held that the district court erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain plaintiff's claim that defendant brought suit against him on the guaranty without probable cause. The court also held that a jury must decide what was defendant's motive or purpose in suing plaintiff if it in fact understood it had no reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits of its claim against plaintiff.

Appellant, Summer Night Oil Company, and Appellees, individuals and oil companies, resolved a dispute over the operation of two oil wells through a settlement agreement. Appellant filed a motion to compel performance of the agreement after the parties failed to perform timely their obligations under the agreement. Specifically, Appellant asked the district court to compel Appellees to deliver all title clearance documents under the agreement. Appellees responded with a request to compel Appellant to pay a fine due to the EPA and a payment owed to Appellees under the agreement. Both parties sought attorney fees. The district court enforced what it determined to be the plain meaning of the agreement's terms, and (1) ordered Appellant to pay the fine owed to the EPA, (2) ordered Appellant to pay Appellee the amount owed it under the agreement, (3) ordered Appellees to deliver all title clearance documents to an escrow agent, and (4) declined to award attorney fees to either party. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Appellant's motion to compel performance of the agreement according to Appellant's terms, and (2) the district court correctly denied Appellant's motion to alter or amend its judgment.

Insured submitted a claim to Insurer after his house was damaged by a storm. Insured returned the payment tendered to him by Insurer, deeming the amount insufficient to cover the damage to his home. Almost two years after the house was damaged, Insured filed suit against Insurer. Insurer argued the lawsuit was barred by a clause in the insurance contract that stated that any action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. The trial court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the policy language was ambiguous and that Insurer, by its actions, had waived its right to enforce the one-year limitation clause. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Insurer could enforce the limitation-of-action clause contained in its contract because (1) the policy language was not ambiguous, and (2) Insurer did not waive its right to enforce the clause.

Sanpete America purchased 110 acres of farmland and water rights from Christian Willardsen pursuant to a land purchase agreement and a warranty deed. After discovering problems with respect to the conveyance of the water right at issue, Sanpete America filed a complaint against Willardsen and Douglas Neeley, Willardsen's attorney, asserting various causes of action and seeking damages. Two successive district court judges issued judgments dismissing Sanpete America's claims against Willardsen and Neeley. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed both judges' conclusion that Sanpete America was entitled to no damages and judgment dismissing Sanpete America's claims, holding (1) Willardsen conveyed his portion of the water right to Sanpete America under a warranty deed, (2) Willardsen breached no covenants in the deed, and (3) Neeley's actions were not the cause of Sanpete America's alleged damages.

Plaintiffs filed this diversity action to foreclose a contractor's lien and an architect's and engineer's lien against Phoenix Land & Acquisition, LLC (Phoenix Land) and Phoenix Health, LLC (Phoenix Health), as owners of the property in dispute, and three financial institutions with recorded security interests in the property. Phoenix Land filed a counterclaim, asserting breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of fiduciary relationship, and deceptive trade practices by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of Phoenix Land's counterclaim. The court held that the district court did not err in finding plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration on the ground that they had waived their right to arbitrate the dispute; they knew of the right and acted inconsistently with that right; and Phoenix Land suffered prejudice by plaintiffs' inconsistent actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the court.