Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Central Southwest Texas Development, LLC and Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) entered into a lease agreement in November 2007: Central was to construct a WaMu bank branch in Austin, and deliver it to WaMu by January 1, 2008, after which WaMu would owe rent to Central for the twenty-year term of the lease. Central did not yet have fee simple ownership of the property, but had contracted to purchase it and had deposited earnest money in escrow. After a number of extensions of the deadline, Central had not yet closed on the property at the time of WaMu’s collapse in September 2008. WaMu was declared insolvent and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. JPMorgan Chase Bank acquired most of WaMu’s assets and liabilities under a Purchase and Assumption (P&A) Agreement with the FDIC. If Chase declined, the FDIC would have been authorized to repudiate “burdensome” leases if doing so would “promote the orderly administration of [WaMu’s] affairs.” Having determined that Chase was unlikely to accept the lease based on the proximity of Chase branches to the leased property, a Central executive emailed the FDIC and asked to be “release[d] . . . from the Lease obligation in order to pursue other options.” Central was soon notified by Chase of its rejection of the lease and by the FDIC of its repudiation. Central subsequently closed on the property. Having failed to find a replacement tenant, Central sold the property the same day a little more than it paid. Central later concluded that the lease did not qualify as "Bank Premises" under the P&A Agreement because no banking facilities were occupied (or even built) by the time of WaMu’s failure. With this new understanding of the lease’s status, Central filed this lawsuit against Chase for breach. After Central moved for summary judgment, the district court held that the lease was not a Bank Premises lease, and therefore that Chase could not decline assignment under the P&A Agreement. Consistent with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in "Excel Willowbrook, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (758 F.3d 592 (2014)), the district court also held that this assignment created privity of estate between Central and Chase, and therefore that Central had standing to assert its interpretation of the P&A Agreement. Chase also moved for summary judgment on the ground that the email communications between the parties constituted a mutual termination of the lease. ROA 2048. The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the district court ruled that Chase’s attempted rejection of the lease was an anticipatory breach, entitling Central to contract damages and excusing it from further performance. Chase and the FDIC appealed. After review, the Fifth Circuit found "no reason to disturb the trial court's finding" that no mutual termination occurred. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Central SW Texas Devel, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan Chase" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Redland family’s dispute over ranch property that some Redland children (“Children”) claimed that their father (“Father”) agreed to place in a family trust. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in entering summary judgment, as questions of fact existed on the issues of whether Children’s claims against Father were barred by the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations. On remand, the district court determined that Children’s claims were not barred and ordered that the disputed property, with the exception of property on which Father resided (“residential property”), be immediately transferred to the family trust. With regard to the residential property, the court ordered that the property be transferred to the trust upon Father’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in holding that an enforceable agreement existed that required placing the disputed property in the trust; (2) did not err in determining that the statute of limitations did not bar Children’s claims; and (3) erred in its disposition of the residential property. Remanded with directions that the residential property be immediately transferred to the family trust subject to Father’s life estate in the property. View "Redland v. Redland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a restaurant supply company, leased commercial property from Defendant. The lease provided Plaintiff and the guarantor with the option to purchase the premises during the term of the lease. In a separate provision, the lease required Defendant to perform environmental remediation on the premises. Plaintiff told Defendant that it had elected to exercise the option to purchase the premises but that, before the parties could close on the transaction, Defendant had to fulfill its obligation to complete the environmental remediation. Plaintiff, however, never attempted to tender payment of the purchase price. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action requesting that the trial court order specific performance of the option to purchase provision in the lease. The trial court declined to order specific performance. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff had failed to exercise the option to purchase in accordance with its terms. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Plaintiff did tender the purchase price as required, it failed to exercise the option to purchase when the option was available; and (2) the doctrine of frustration of purchase did not apply in this case because Defendant’s lack of environmental remediation did not interfere with the purpose of the lease. View "Howard-Arnold, Inc. v. T.N.T. Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

Professional golfing legend Jack Nicklas' participation in a developer's plan to build a luxurious golf course and housing plan allegedly led plaintiffs-appellants Jeffrey and Judee Donner to invest $1.5 million in the development. "Plans went awry:" the developer's parent company went bankrupt, and the project was never built. The Donners settled with the developer's parent company in its bankruptcy proceedings, then sued Jack Nicklaus and Jack Nicklaus Golf Club, LLC for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. The district court dismissed the action, holding in the alternative: (1) the complaint failed to state a valid claim for relief; and (2) defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the Donners elected their remedies by entering into a settlement agreement with other parties. After review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court with respect to two issues: (1) the dismissal of the claim involving intentional misrepresentation of Mr. Nicklaus's membership status; and (2) the award of summary judgment to Mr. Nicklaus and Nicklaus Golf, finding the settlement agreement did not include defendants, and the Donners neither affirmed nor repudiated a contract. The case was affirmed in all other respects, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Donner v. Nicklaus" on Justia Law

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In August 2007, Appellee Wayne Harrison entered into a lease with Appellant Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, per which Cabot obtained the exclusive right to explore oil-and-gas resources on Harrison's property. In exchange, the company agreed to pay an initial bonus plus a one-eighth royalty on oil or gas successfully produced from the land. Approximately halfway through the primary lease term, Harrison and his wife commenced a civil action against Cabot in a federal district court, seeking a declaration that the lease was invalid. The Harrisons alleged the company had fraudulently induced Mr. Harrison to enter into the lease via an agent's representation that Mr. Harrison would never receive any more than $100 per acre as a threshold bonus payment from a gas producing company. The Harrisons learned of other landowner-lessors receiving higher payments. The Pennsylvania Court accepted certification from the Third Circuit to address whether the primary term of an oil-and-gas lease should have been equitably extended by the courts, where the lessor pursued an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the validity of the lease. In its counterclaim, Cabot sought a declaratory judgment that, in the event the Harrisons' suit failed, the primary term of the lease would be equitably tolled during the period of time during which the suit was pending, and, concomitantly, the lease would be extended for an equivalent period of time beyond what was provided by its actual terms. The district court awarded summary judgment in Cabot's favor on the suit to invalidate the lease. The court, however, resolved the counterclaim in the Harrisons' favor, concluding that Pennsylvania law does not provide for equitable extensions of oil and gas leases under the circumstances. Cabot appealed, arguing that it would be deprived of the full benefit of the bargained-for terms of its contract with the Harrisons by their "meritless lease challenges." Cabot contended Pennsylvania law provided that a party repudiates a contract, and thus effectuates an essential breach, when he makes an unequivocal statement that he will not perform in accordance with his agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with Cabot's contention, holding that the Harrisons' lease challenge was not an anticipatory breach of the lease. "Our reluctance, in this respect, is bolstered by the Harrisons' observation that oil-and-gas-producing companies are free to proceed according to their own devices to negotiate express tolling provisions for inclusion in their leases. [. . .] Certainly, in light of the voluminous decisional law, such companies are on sufficient notice of the prospect for validity challenges to warrant their consideration of such protective measures. [ . . .] Our determination is only that, consistent with the prevailing substantive law of this Commonwealth, the mere pursuit of declaratory relief challenging the validity of a lease does not amount to such." View "Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Birchwood Land Company appealed a Superior Court decision denying Birchwood's motion for attachment and granting defendant Judith Krizan's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Birchwood's complaint alleged that Krizan was unjustly enriched by Birchwood's construction of an access road and other infrastructure to her property such that she was able to develop the property without contributing to the cost of the improvements. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and affirmed. View "Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Krizan" on Justia Law

In 2000, Plaintiff purchased a lot in a subdivision being developed by Markirk Construction, Inc., of which Kirk Jones was president. The next year, Plaintiff completed construction of a home on the lot. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the negotiation and sale of the lot. The jury found in favor of Jones. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it had to find Jones knew that the alleged misrepresentations were false when he made them. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury that Defendant’s alleged representations concerned future events, and therefore, in order for Plaintiff to recover, Jones must have made these representations with knowledge when they were made that the representations were false. View "Stevens v. Markirk Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Sister and Brother were co-trustees of a family Trust established by the siblings' parents. Before their mother died, she entered into a contract for deed with Brother for the sale of 480 acres of trust farmland. After the mother died, the siblings stipulated for court supervision of the Trust. Within the Trust action, Sister sued Brother and his wife for undue influence on his contract for deed with their mother. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Brother, concluding that Sister’s claim of undue influence was barred by the statute of limitations and that any oral agreement associated with the contract for deed was barred by the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Sister did not timely bring her claim for undue influence, the circuit court correctly ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) because Sister sought to enforce her asserted interest in the sale of real estate, the circuit court correctly ruled that any oral agreement regarding the real estate was barred by the statute of frauds. View "In re Matheny Family Trust" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute over ownership of parking spaces situated between The Falls Homeowners Association (“The Falls”) and Falls Garden Condominium Association (“Falls Garden”). The Falls and Falls Garden executed a letter of intent in settlement of litigation. After problems arose between the parties, The Falls filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement to implement the letter of intent. The circuit court judge granted The Falls’s motion. The court ordered The Falls to prepare a settlement agreement and a release of all claims and ordered Falls Garden to execute the settlement agreement. On appeal, Falls Garden argued that the Letter of Intent was not binding because the parties did not intend to be bound and because the letter did not contain all material terms. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded, holding (1) the letter of intent was an enforceable contract to which the parties intended to be bound; and (2) because the letter of intent was unambiguous and constituted an enforceable contract, the trial judge did not err in failing to hold a plenary hearing on the merits of the motion to enforce settlement agreement. View "Falls Garden Condo. Ass’n v. Falls Homeowners Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted to sell Defendants certain real property. The contract provided that Plaintiff would retain ownership of a sixty-foot wide strip of property to provide access to her remaining property, but the warranty deed failed to include the reservation. When it became difficult for Plaintiff to access her property due to improvements on the purchased real property, Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging, among other claims that were subsequently dismissed, breach of contract. The trial court ruled for Plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and awarded her $650,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s prevailing claim was injury to real property, and therefore, the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to “actions for injuries to personal or real property.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the gravamen of Plaintiff’s prevailing claim was breach of contract, to which the six-year statute of limitations for “actions on contracts not otherwise expressly provided for” applied. View "Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enters., LP" on Justia Law