Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Salvador Rivas purchased a condominium unit with a mortgage loan from Flagstar Bank, secured by a deed of trust. Rivas fell behind on his condo association dues, leading the New Hampshire House Condominium Unit Owners Association (NHH) to foreclose on the unit in 2014. The foreclosure sale terms indicated the unit was sold subject to Flagstar’s first deed of trust of approximately $256,632. Advanced Financial Investments, LLC (AFI) bought the unit for $26,000, despite its tax-assessed value of $237,930. Flagstar later filed for judicial foreclosure, claiming its lien was extinguished by NHH’s foreclosure sale.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed Flagstar’s judicial foreclosure claim, reasoning that the lien was extinguished by the prior foreclosure sale. The court also dismissed Flagstar’s claims for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment as time-barred, as they were raised for the first time in an amended complaint filed almost four years after the foreclosure sale.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court agreed with Flagstar that its judicial foreclosure claim was improperly dismissed, as rebuttals to affirmative defenses are not subject to any statute of limitations. However, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the alternative ground that appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the judicial foreclosure claim. The court held that the 2014 foreclosure sale was not unconscionable as a matter of law, given the legal uncertainty at the time regarding whether Flagstar’s lien would survive the sale.The court also rejected Flagstar’s remaining arguments, except for the unjust enrichment claim against AFI. The court found that this claim should not have been dismissed as time-barred and could not be resolved on summary judgment. The case was remanded for trial on the unjust enrichment claim against AFI, while the trial court’s judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Advanced Financial Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LLC, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and tort claims related to a construction project. The United States, through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), contracted with Isolux to build a substation, and Liberty issued performance and payment bonds for Isolux. After Isolux was terminated, Liberty hired E&C as the completion contractor, but E&I performed the work. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty failed to pay for the work completed.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment for Liberty on the unjust enrichment claim and ruled in Liberty's favor on all other claims after a bench trial. The court denied Plaintiffs' untimely request for a jury trial, excluded an expert witness report filed after the deadline, found no evidence of an assignment of rights between E&C and E&I, and ruled against Plaintiffs on their fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial request, as Plaintiffs failed to timely file the motion and did not justify the delay. The exclusion of the expert report was also upheld, as the district court properly applied the relevant factors and found the late report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no valid assignment of rights from E&C to E&I, meaning Liberty's promise to pay was to E&C, not E&I. The court also upheld the findings that Liberty did not have the intent to deceive or induce reliance, and that Bruce did not reasonably rely on Mattingly's statements. Finally, the court declined to address the unjust enrichment claim as Plaintiffs did not raise the argument below. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in their entirety. View "E&I Global Energy Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Allan Gumarang entered into a lease agreement with Braemer on Raymond, LLC (Lessor) to operate an ice cream parlor. The lease included provisions requiring the Lessor to maintain the property and for Gumarang to obtain liability insurance and indemnify the Lessor against claims arising from his use of the property. In October 2017, a fire destroyed the property, and Gumarang alleged that the Lessor and its management (Management) failed to ensure the property had adequate fire prevention systems.Gumarang filed a lawsuit against the Lessor and Management for breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. In response, the Lessor and Management demanded that Gumarang defend and indemnify them under the lease terms. When Gumarang refused, they filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and breach of contract. Gumarang filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, arguing it arose from his protected activity of filing the lawsuit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Gumarang’s anti-SLAPP motion in part, striking the cross-claims for comparative indemnity and equitable indemnity but denied it for the contractual indemnity and breach of contract claims. The court found that the latter claims did not arise from protected activity and that the indemnity provision in the lease was enforceable. The court also denied Gumarang’s request for attorney fees, finding he did not achieve a practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed that the cross-claims for contractual indemnity and breach of contract did not arise from Gumarang’s protected activity of filing the lawsuit but from his alleged breach of the lease’s indemnity provision. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees, concluding that Gumarang did not obtain a significant practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion. View "Gumarang v. Braemer on Raymond, LLC" on Justia Law

Cedar Hills Investment Co., L.L.C. leased part of the ground under the Battlefield Mall in Springfield, Missouri, to Battlefield Mall LLC. Cedar Hills suspected that Battlefield was improperly deducting certain costs from revenue-sharing payments owed under the lease. Cedar Hills sued Battlefield, and the district court found that Battlefield had improperly deducted capital expenditures and some administrative costs from shared revenue. The court approved the deduction of security costs and other administrative costs but held that Battlefield failed to state charges to subtenants for deducted costs separately as required by the lease. Cedar Hills was awarded approximately $3.5 million in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Cedar Hills on several points, including the improper deduction of capital expenditures and the failure to separately state charges. However, the court also found that Battlefield's deduction of security costs was permissible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings regarding the improper deduction of capital expenditures and the failure to separately state charges. However, the appellate court found that the district court misidentified which administrative costs were deductible and miscalculated Cedar Hills's damages. The Eighth Circuit held that Battlefield's deduction of capital expenditures breached the lease, and the failure to separately state charges also breached the lease. The court affirmed the district court's finding that security costs were common area maintenance costs. The case was remanded for further proceedings to correctly identify deductible administrative costs and recalculate damages. The appellate court granted the parties' joint motion to supplement the record. View "Cedar Hills Investment Co. v. Battlefield Mall, LLC" on Justia Law

Island Girl Outfitters, LLC (IGO) operated a store called Hippie Gurlz at Eastern Shore Centre, an outdoor shopping mall owned by Allied Development of Alabama, LLC. IGO signed a five-year lease in late 2020 but closed the store after the first year due to slow sales. Allied Development filed a complaint in Baldwin Circuit Court seeking rent and other damages under the lease. The trial court entered a $94,350 judgment in favor of Allied Development against IGO and its owner, Anthony S. Carver, who had personally guaranteed the lease.The Baldwin Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allied Development, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding IGO's liability for breaching the lease. The court then held a hearing to determine damages, ultimately awarding Allied Development $94,350. IGO and Carver appealed, arguing that Allied Development failed to market and maintain the mall adequately and that they should not be liable for future rent since the storefront was relet shortly after they vacated.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo regarding the liability determination and under the ore tenus rule for the damages award. The court found that IGO and Carver failed to show that Allied Development had a contractual duty to market and maintain the mall in a specific manner. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment on liability was affirmed. Regarding damages, the absence of a transcript from the damages hearing meant the court had to presume the trial court's findings were correct. Consequently, the $94,350 judgment was affirmed. View "Island Girl Outfitters, LLC v. Allied Development of Alabama, LLC" on Justia Law

James and Amber May hired RES Construction to build their home in Sioux Falls. RES subcontracted First Rate Excavate, Inc. to install the septic system and construct the foundation. The Mays alleged that the foundation was installed several feet below grade level, causing significant drainage and septic issues that damaged their home, yard, and neighboring properties. They sued First Rate for negligence. The circuit court dismissed the claim based on the economic loss doctrine, and the Mays appealed.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, dismissed the Mays' negligence claim, citing the economic loss doctrine, which limits remedies for purely economic losses to those specified in a contract. The court reasoned that the Mays lacked privity of contract with First Rate and that their claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the economic loss doctrine should not be expanded beyond claims arising from transactions involving the sale of defective goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court noted that the doctrine is designed to prevent parties from circumventing contract remedies by seeking tort remedies for economic losses. Since the Mays' claim was based on negligence and not on a UCC transaction, the economic loss doctrine did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the lack of privity between the Mays and First Rate further precluded the application of the economic loss doctrine. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "May v. First Rate Excavate" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the lease of a commercial property that has lasted nearly eight years. The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The plaintiff prevailed at trial and was awarded a monetary judgment of over $20 million. The defendants paid the full amount of the judgment but notified the plaintiff that they intended to exercise their appellate rights.The Superior Court initially handled the case, and the plaintiff prevailed. The defendants appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. The defendants then sought further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court granted, limited to issues related to postjudgment interest.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that the exercise of appellate rights does not constitute a condition on the payment of a judgment. Therefore, the judgment was fully satisfied when it was paid in full, and the accrual of postjudgment interest halted upon payment. The court concluded that postjudgment interest is meant to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money when damages are not paid on time, not to punish or discourage appeals. The court reversed the portion of the lower court's order that allowed for the accrual of postjudgment interest after the defendants' payment in full. View "H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC" on Justia Law

Charles Bich and the Bruno Bich Trust made a series of loans to WW3 LLC, owned by Curt Waldvogel, for constructing an oil-processing facility in North Dakota. Waldvogel assured the Bichs that their investment would be secured by real and personal property. However, the project failed, and the Bichs did not recover their investment, leading them to sue for breach of contract.The Eastern District of Wisconsin court found that Waldvogel's promise to secure the loans with property was a "special promise" under Wisconsin law, requiring compliance with the statute of frauds. Since there was no written agreement meeting the statute's requirements, the court ruled the loan agreement unenforceable. The court also determined that the promise would have constituted a mortgage, which also needed to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim but allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed to trial. The jury awarded the Bichs $200,000 for unjust enrichment, and the court held Waldvogel and WW3 jointly and severally liable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the promise to secure the loans with property was a mortgage under Wisconsin law and required a written agreement to be enforceable. The court found that the emails exchanged between the parties did not constitute a final agreement and did not meet the statute of frauds' requirements. Consequently, the breach of contract claim failed, and the unjust enrichment award remained the only compensation for the Bichs. View "Bich v WW3 LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute arising from a 2016 real estate transaction in which the Bauers sold residential property in Crawford County to the Beamons. The Beamons filed a complaint with two claims under the theory of fraud and deceit, seeking both monetary damages and equitable rescission of the contract. Before trial, the Beamons elected remedies associated with their equitable claim, leading to a bench trial. The circuit court rejected the rescission claim but awarded damages for breach of contract and granted the Beamons' motion for attorney’s fees.The Bauers appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, arguing that the circuit court erred in awarding damages for breach of contract and attorney’s fees. The Beamons cross-appealed, arguing the court erred in denying their rescission request. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s award of damages for breach of contract, affirmed the denial of rescission, and noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the attorney’s fees award due to the Bauers' failure to file an amended notice of appeal.Following the mandate, the Bauers filed motions for their own attorney’s fees and to set aside the Beamons' attorney’s-fee judgment. The circuit court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider these motions. The Bauers appealed this decision.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction. The court clarified that the mandate did not foreclose the circuit court from ruling on new motions for attorney’s fees, which are collateral matters, or on a motion to set aside a judgment for fraud under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4). Consequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings on the Bauers' motions. View "BAUER v. BEAMON" on Justia Law

DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC and DCA Capitol Hill SNF, LLC (collectively, “DCA”) leased a property from Capitol Hill Group (“CHG”) in Northeast Washington, DC, to operate a long-term acute care hospital and skilled nursing facility. In 2015, DCA began withholding rent payments, claiming dissatisfaction with CHG’s installation of a new HVAC system and generator. CHG sued for breach of contract, and DCA counterclaimed for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging misrepresentations by CHG.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to CHG on DCA’s fraud counterclaims related to pre-lease representations, citing the lease’s integration clauses. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of CHG on its breach-of-contract claim and DCA’s counterclaims, finding that CHG had fulfilled its obligations regarding the HVAC system and generator work. The court also awarded CHG attorneys’ fees based on a provision in the lease.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The appellate court held that DCA’s fraud claims related to pre-lease representations failed as a matter of law because DCA’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was unreasonable. The court also concluded that CHG had not breached the lease, as the term “new HVAC system” did not include distribution components, and CHG had fulfilled its generator-related obligations by replacing one generator. The court upheld the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to CHG, finding no abuse of discretion.The case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether to award CHG attorneys’ fees associated with the appeal. View "DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC v. Capitol Hill Group" on Justia Law