Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Kim Crockett appealed the circuit courtâs order in favor of Appellee C.A.G. Investments, Inc. (CAG). CAG was created as an investment vehicle to provide funds to Omni Holding and Development Corporation (Omni). Omni operated a crop-dusting and farm-equipment export business. CAG purchased equipment and land for Omniâs operations and a house for Omniâs manager. Ms. Crockett became Omniâs sole stockholder, president and chairman of the board in 2005. CAG made a series of loans to Omni. The loans were secured by the property Omni used in the businessâ operation, and by the house in which Ms. Crockett lived. In late summer 2003, Omni suffered numerous financial difficulties, resulting in the deterioration of the business relationship between the management of CAG and Omni. While Omni contemplated filing for bankruptcy protection, CAG sought to recover the collateral pledged for the loans it had made to Omni. CAG asked Omni to remove all personal property Omni owned from the premises, and demanded to take possession of the real property. Omni refused to comply, and CAG sued for possession, believing the property to be unlawfully detained. The circuit court entered an order against Omni for unlawful detainer, and found that CAG was entitled to a writ of possession. Omni did not vacate the premises, and appealed the circuit courtâs order. The appellate court dismissed Omniâs appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the circuit and appellate courts.

Plaintiff Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC (Lodge) is a water park that sits on former farmland. In 2000, the Lodge annexed a new portion of the former farmland to expand its premises. Defendant Cherryland Electric Cooperative (Cherryland) ran an electric line to the former farm. Cherryland insisted that it had exclusive rights to provide electric service to the Lodge. The Lodge did not protest Cherrylandâs assertion in order to keep its expansion project on track. The new Cherryland contract called for discounted rates. Over the course of the contract, Cherryland unilaterally raised the rates. The Lodge filed suit seeking a refund of excess rates it paid to Cherryland, and to have the ability to choose its own electric service provider. A hearing officer would rule in favor of the Lodge on the rate refund, but would not allow it to choose its own service provider, citing Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ that dated back to when it provided service to the farm. The appellate court reversed the hearing officer. One of the issues on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ stopped when the property ownership changed hands. The Court concluded that the right is not extinguished when ownership changes. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, and reinstated the decision of the hearing officer.

Defendant and his wife appeal the trial court's judgment in a breach of contract and lien foreclosure action arising out of a dispute concerning the construction of a single-family home in the town of Greenwich. Defendants challenged all aspects of the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff except the portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff loss profit. Plaintiff challenged in his cross-appeal that the trial court improperly accepted the attorney trial referee's determination that the mechanic's lien was invalid and therefore improperly awarded defendants damages under General Statutes 49-8(c). The court held that because plaintiff and third party defendant offered no legal support for the attorney trial referee's finding that the wife was liable for breaching the contract between defendant and plaintiff, the portion of the trial court's judgment that was rendered against her could not stand. The court also held that the judgment of foreclosure must be reversed where there was no evidence that plaintiff furnished any materials or provided any services in connection with the contract balance and that the portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes 52-249 must also be reversed where such an award was authorized only when a valid judgment of foreclosure had been obtained. The court further held that the parties did not intend to impose liability for delays in the permitting and wetlands approval process and that the attorney trial referee improperly found that plaintiff was entitled to damages for the delays attributable to the change orders. The court also held that because plaintiff was not entitled to recover delay damages, it necessarily followed that any mechanic's lien securing those damages was invalid. The court finally held that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a determination of reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with section 49-8(c).

Plaintiffs-Appellants David and Shirley Fuller appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Respondents David Callister, Confluence Management (CM), LLC and Liberty Partners, Inc. (LP). CM wanted to buy over twelve acres of land from the Fullers. At the same time, the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) attempted to acquire part of that property for a right-of-way in order to expand a portion of a road. After executing its contract with the Fullers, CM executed an addendum to the contract where it agreed to deed over a portion of the property to ACHD, and to transfer the proceeds of that conveyance to the Fullers. CM assigned the contract to LP with the consent of the Fullers. The Fullers executed a warranty deed conveying the property to LP which made no mention of the addendum to ACHD. ACHD paid LP for the property, and the Fullers requested LP turn that money over to them in accordance with the addendum. When LP refused, the Fullers sued. Ultimately CM and LP won at the district court. The court held that the addendum merged with the warranty deed, and therefore gave the Fullers no right to collect the proceeds from the sale of land to ACHD. CM was dismissed from the suit having executed a novation to LP. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in its decisions in favor of CM and LP. The Court found that the addendum did not merge. Furthermore, the Court found the CM/LP novation was invalid, and that the Fullers could maintain their suit against CM. The Court vacated the district courtâs judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Missoula City Counsel, the City of Missoula, and the Mayor, (collectively "City") and Muth-Hilberry, LLC ("developer") appealed a district court determination that found that the City was arbitrary and capricious in approving a zoning and preliminary plat for a subdivision known as Sonata Park located in Rattlesnake Valley, Montana. At issue was whether neighbors, several parties opposed to the subdivision, and the North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association, Inc. ("Association") had standing. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in striking affidavits filed by the developer and the City in connection with their motions for summary judgment. Further at issue was whether the 1989 Sunshine Agreement between the City and the developer's predecessor in interest superseded the City's growth policy. Finally at issue was whether the City's decision in Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The court held that the neighbors had standing to sue in their own right and that the Association had associational standing to proceed on behalf of its members. The court also held that any error made by the district court in granting the neighbor's motion to strike the developer's affidavit was harmless. The court further held that the Sunlight Agreement did not supersede the City's growth policy where the Sunlight Agreement could be void ab initio and did not appear to guarantee certain density. The court finally held that substantial compliance was still valid and that a government body must substantially comply with its growth policy in making zoning decisions and that the City's decision to approve Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

"The Hamlets" is a subdivision within Crowfield Plantation. Covenants for the subdivision were drafted and recorded in 1991. The covenants created an Architectural Review Board that would enforce the terms of the covenants of the subdivision. Respondents John and Pamela Matsell live in the Hamlets, and their lot abuts a golf course. Their next door neighbors built a fence that covers the majority of the backyard that can be seen from the street that fronts the property, in violation of the covenants. In 2007, the Matsells filed a complaint with the Architectural Review Board to have the Board order the neighbors to remove the fence. When the Board did not comply, the Matsells filed their complaint with the circuit court. The Board argued that it had discretion in interpreting and enforcing the subdivision covenants. The trial court read the "clear language" of the covenants, and found the fence was in violation. The court granted the Matsells summary judgment, and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court found the language of the covenants was plain and unambiguous, and did not allow for a fence that could be seen from the street. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision granting the Matsells summary judgment.

"The Hamlets" is a subdivision within Crowfield Plantation. Covenants for the subdivision were drafted and recorded in 1991. The covenants created an Architectural Review Board that would enforce the terms of the covenants of the subdivision. Respondents John and Pamela Matsell live in the Hamlets, and their lot abuts a golf course. Their next door neighbors built a fence that covers the majority of the backyard that can be seen from the street that fronts the property, in violation of the covenants. In 2007, the Matsells filed a complaint with the Architectural Review Board to have the Board order the neighbors to remove the fence. When the Board did not comply, the Matsells filed their complaint with the circuit court. The Board argued that it had discretion in interpreting and enforcing the subdivision covenants. The trial court read the "clear language" of the covenants, and found the fence was in violation. The court granted the Matsells summary judgment, and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court found the language of the covenants was plain and unambiguous, and did not allow for a fence that could be seen from the street. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision granting the Matsells summary judgment.

Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners alleging that petitioners had breached their agreement to pay the "Advisory Fee" that respondent earned while acting as petitioners' broker in the sale of petitioners' real property. At issue was whether the seller of real property was entitled to refuse to pay an agreed upon fee to the broker who represented seller on the ground that the broker was a "dual agent." The court held that it was questionable whether there was any legally sufficient evidence of dual agency; and if there was any evidence, the jury was entitled to decide as a matter of fact that a dual agency did not exist. The court also held that there simply was no evidence of any other material fact that respondent had a duty to disclose but did not. Therefore, the court affirmed the jury award of damages to respondent.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.