Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A law firm leased office space in downtown Washington, D.C. from a commercial landlord. In the spring of 2020, following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and in response to orders issued by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the law firm curtailed most of its in-office operations and directed employees to work remotely. The firm subsequently invoked a rent abatement provision in its lease, arguing that the pandemic and the government’s orders constituted a force majeure event, which resulted in a material interference with its use and enjoyment of the premises due to an alleged interruption of the essential building service of “secure access” or “prompt access” to the building.The law firm filed a breach of contract suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after the landlord denied the rent abatement request. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court denied the law firm’s motion and granted summary judgment to the landlord. The court found that the contract was unambiguous, and that there was no interruption of “secure or prompt access” to the premises, as the building remained physically accessible and the landlord did not impede entry. The court also determined that the government’s orders did not amount to a force majeure “taking” as defined by the lease. The law firm appealed.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that under the plain meaning of the lease, “secure and prompt access” refers to physical ability to enter the premises, as provided by the landlord, and not to a generalized right to use the premises free from government restrictions. Because the law firm’s access to the building was never impeded by the landlord, the rent abatement provision was not triggered. View "Crowell & Moring, LLP v. Trea 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue Trust" on Justia Law

Gunwerks sought to expand its business by constructing a new manufacturing facility in Cody, Wyoming, a project involving public funds and coordinated through Forward Cody Wyoming, Inc. Forward Cody retained Plan One Architects and Sletten Construction of Wyoming, Inc. as the project's designer and general contractor, respectively. Sletten hired various subcontractors, including Big Horn Glass, Inc. (BHG), to perform specific tasks. After completion, Gunwerks alleged numerous construction defects in the facility, including issues with concrete, finishes, HVAC, siding, drainage, ceiling heights, door and window flashings, and the shooting tunnel. Gunwerks sued Forward Cody, Plan One, and Sletten for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.Sletten responded to Gunwerks’s lawsuit by filing a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including BHG. Sletten claimed that, should it be found liable to Gunwerks, subcontractors responsible for any deficient work should indemnify it for those damages. Sletten did not specifically admit or allege deficiencies in BHG’s work but sought to preserve its right to recovery if any subcontractor was found at fault. Approximately ten months after Sletten’s third-party complaint, BHG moved for summary judgment in the District Court of Park County, arguing that Sletten had not presented evidence showing BHG caused any of the alleged damages. The district court granted summary judgment for BHG, finding that Sletten had not countered BHG’s prima facie showing with disputed facts, relying instead on speculation.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, applying the same standard as the lower court and viewing the record most favorably to Sletten. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Sletten failed to present admissible, competent evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding BHG’s liability for any alleged defects. The court found Sletten’s evidence speculative and conclusory, insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The disposition was affirmed. View "Sletten Construction of Wyoming, Inc. v. Big Horn Glass, Inc." on Justia Law

A Nebraska limited liability company owned by Michael Perkins hired RMR Building Group, LLC, managed and solely owned by Robert M. Ryan II, as a general contractor to redevelop a shopping center. Their contract used a cost-plus billing arrangement, where Perkins paid RMR in advance for specific construction costs, including a substantial sum for HVAC equipment and RMR’s fee. RMR deposited the funds into its general operating account but did not pay for the HVAC equipment; instead, it used the money to cover other business obligations. Perkins terminated the contract after RMR failed to provide proof of payment for the equipment and then sued RMR and Ryan for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent misrepresentation, also seeking to pierce the corporate veil and hold Ryan personally liable.The District Court for Douglas County found that RMR breached the contract and was liable under theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment, but not for conversion or fraudulent misrepresentation. The court declined to disregard RMR’s corporate entity, finding no sufficient evidence that Ryan diverted funds for personal use or that RMR was a mere facade for Ryan’s dealings. Perkins appealed these findings.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that the corporate veil should be pierced and Ryan held jointly and severally liable for the misappropriated funds, relying on factors from United States Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Rupe. On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence did not establish by a preponderance that RMR’s entity should be disregarded, nor did it support fraud or conversion claims against Ryan. The Supreme Court remanded with direction to affirm the district court’s judgment. View "Perkins v. RMR Building Group" on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the sale of property located at 301 Harris Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island. The plaintiff, 1100 North Main LLC, sought to purchase property from the Providence Firefighters Realty Corp. (the Firefighters), contingent on the Firefighters acquiring replacement property. The Firefighters entered into negotiations with the defendant, Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc., to purchase the Harris Avenue property. After several communications, the Firefighters signed a draft purchase and sales agreement for the property, but the defendant refused to execute it and reportedly accepted another offer. The plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking declaratory, equitable, or monetary relief based on the alleged contract, and recorded two notices of lis pendens against the Harris Avenue property.In the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, quash the lis pendens, and sought sanctions. The plaintiff argued that the attorneys’ communications constituted assent and that a purported assignment from the Firefighters gave the plaintiff standing. Before the Superior Court justice issued a decision, the plaintiff attempted to amend its complaint to add factual allegations and clarify standing. The trial justice dismissed the complaint and quashed the lis pendens, finding that the allegations failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and did not establish standing. The motion to amend was denied as futile, as no enforceable contract was found.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether a binding contract existed under the statute of frauds and whether denial of the motion to amend was proper. The Supreme Court held that the unsigned purchase and sales agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds and no binding contract existed. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint, quashing of the lis pendens, and denial of the motion to amend. View "1100 North Main LLC v. Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

Joel Ward performed construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC and its sole member, Ren Bishop, in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an agreed hourly wage and travel compensation. Despite keeping detailed records of his hours, Ward was not paid for work completed between 2017 and 2019, leading him to pursue payment through legal action. The dispute centered on whether Ward should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor and whether he was required to register as a contractor under Idaho law.The case was first heard in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho, Bonneville County. After a bench trial, and based on the parties’ stipulation that Ward was an independent contractor, the court dismissed his wage claims, leaving only breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The district court initially awarded Ward full damages for breach of contract. However, after Bishop raised the issue of contractor registration under the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA) in post-trial motions, the court amended its findings, limited contract damages to out-of-state work, awarded unjust enrichment damages for Idaho work, and granted costs and attorney fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed whether Ward was required to register as a contractor under ICRA and whether the contract was illegal. The Court held that Bishop failed to meet his burden to prove Ward was required to register under ICRA, as the record did not establish Ward’s status as a contractor for those purposes. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s amended judgment and remanded with instructions to reinstate its original findings and amended judgment, including the previously awarded attorney fees and costs. The Court also awarded Ward attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Ward v. Bishop Construction" on Justia Law

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

Two couples entered into a written agreement for the sale and purchase of a condominium in Idaho, using a standard real estate contract form. The property was identified by its street address, unit number, and condominium name. After agreeing to terms and signing the contract, the sellers informed the buyers that they no longer wished to sell. The buyers, who had already paid earnest money, secured financing, and prepared for closing, sought to enforce the agreement. The sellers refused to proceed, claiming the contract was unenforceable due to an inadequate property description under the statute of frauds and asserting the parties had mutually rescinded the agreement.The case was first heard in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the statute of frauds and specific performance, finding factual disputes. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the property description in the contract was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. At a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that the contract was valid, had not been rescinded or abandoned, and that the sellers breached it, awarding the buyers damages. The district court, however, granted the sellers’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding the remedy of specific performance unavailable because the buyers had not tendered the full purchase price at closing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed that the contract’s property description satisfied statutory requirements and thus dismissed the sellers’ statute of frauds defense. The court held that the district court erred in denying specific performance solely for failure to tender the full purchase price, especially since the sellers’ conduct prevented completion. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the denial of specific performance and remanded for the district court to consider equitable factors. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the buyers and awarded them costs and fees on appeal. View "McLaughlin v. Moore" on Justia Law

A veteran and his spouse obtained a VA-guaranteed loan to purchase a home. After the veteran’s employment was disrupted due to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the couple experienced financial hardship and defaulted on their mortgage. The lender, a bank, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The couple attempted to reinstate their mortgage by tendering the full amount to bring the loan current, as provided by the mortgage contract, but allege that the bank and its foreclosure law firm failed to accept their payment or provide a means for payment. The property was sold to third-party purchasers at a foreclosure sale for more than the outstanding loan balance. The couple claims they did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to exercise their statutory right of redemption.The third-party purchasers filed an ejectment action in Madison Circuit Court. The couple defended against the action and brought counterclaims against both the purchasers and the bank, alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory relief. The trial court dismissed all claims against the bank and the third-party purchasers and granted summary judgment on the ejectment. The couple amended their pleadings, but the trial court again dismissed all claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama. During the appeal, they settled with the third-party purchasers, leaving only their claims against the bank.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Alabama law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and affirmed dismissal of that claim. However, the Court found that the couple adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract (due to the bank’s alleged refusal to allow reinstatement), wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The Court reversed dismissal of those claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Laborde v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A property owner sought to develop a parcel of land in a town, which required rezoning and environmental review. In 2017, while preparing its zoning petition, the owner and the town entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that purported to bind the town and its successors to continue reviewing the zoning petition until a final determination was reached, based on empirical data. The owner submitted its petition and participated in the environmental review process, investing significant resources. After local elections in 2019, a new town supervisor and board, who opposed the project, voted to terminate review of the zoning petition and the related environmental process.The property owner filed suit against the town, its board, and the supervisor, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the town’s termination of the review process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the MOU was unenforceable under the term limits doctrine and contract zoning doctrine. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissed the complaint, holding the MOU invalid. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that decision.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case after granting leave to appeal. The Court held that the MOU was invalid and unenforceable under the term limits doctrine because it impermissibly bound successor town boards in the exercise of their legislative discretion over zoning matters. The Court found that such an agreement was not specifically authorized by statute or charter, and did not fall within an exception for proprietary acts. As a result, the property owner’s contractual claims failed as a matter of law. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill" on Justia Law

A carpenter employed by a subcontractor was injured after falling from a ladder owned by another subcontractor, DAL Electrical Corporation, while working on a renovation project at an office building. The injured worker was using his own employer’s equipment in the morning but, after lunch, returned to the worksite without his equipment and used an unattended DAL ladder, which was defective and marked with blue tape. He was injured when the ladder wobbled and he fell, impaling himself on a tool in his belt. The worker brought claims under New York Labor Law and for common-law negligence against the project’s general contractor, premises owner, and DAL, asserting the defective ladder caused his injuries. The general contractor and owner sought indemnification from DAL under their subcontract.The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the worker’s motion for partial summary judgment on one Labor Law claim and denied DAL’s motion to dismiss other claims and cross-claims by the general contractor and owner. The court also granted the general contractor and owner summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order by denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and granting summary judgment for DAL on all claims and cross-claims against it. The general contractor and owner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that none of the indemnification provisions in the subcontract required DAL to indemnify the general contractor or owner for the worker’s injuries because the injuries did not arise from DAL’s performance of its contractually defined work. The Court also found that DAL did not owe a duty of care in tort to the injured worker, as the facts did not fit within any recognized exception to the general rule against extending contractual duties to non-contracting third parties. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. View "Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc." on Justia Law