Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In building their home, Plaintiffs purchased SuperFlex, a stucco-like material, to cover the house’s exterior. GrailCoat Worldwide, LLC and GrailCo, Inc. (collectively, GrailCoat), the manufacturers of SuperFlex, provided an express twenty-year warranty for the product. Several years after the construction of their home was completed, the product failed. Plaintiffs brought suit against GrailCoat and Hartley Construction, Inc., the company that had designed and built the home, for damages. Hartley moved for summary judgment under N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-50(a)(5), North Carolina’s six-year statute of repose for claims arising out of improvements to real property. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of express warranty against GrailCoat, holding that GrailCoat knowingly and freely entered into a valid contract of sale with Plaintiffs that provided for a warranty term that exceeded the repose period, and therefore, GrailCoat waived the protections provided by the statute of repose. View "Christie v. Hartley Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law

Gail and Scott Helm filed a personal injury action against Gallo Realty, Inc., one of its real estate agents, and 206 Massachusetts Ave, LLC (owner of the property). The Helms rented a beach house at 206 Massachusetts Avenue in Lewes for a week in 2010. As Gail descended the stairs, she fell and sustained injuries. Gail sought to recover damages based on claims of negligence and breach of contract; Scott claimed loss of consortium. The Superior Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Helms' claims. The Helms appealed, arguing: (1) the Superior Court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of primary risk assumption and comparative negligence as a matter of law; (2) the Superior Court erred in holding that an indemnification clause provision in the lease protected defendants from liability; and (3) the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court applied both the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and the doctrine of comparative negligence incorrectly. The record reflected that the Superior Court never specifically based its decision on the indemnification clause. The Superior Court's initial ruling in favor of defendants was only on the negligence claims. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the record reflected that the Superior Court's dismissive rulings on the Helms' contract claim was "cursory and inextricably intertwined" with its erroneous rulings on the negligence claims. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue,LLC" on Justia Law

Dennis and Charlene Deckert appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their action for a declaratory judgment and specific performance of an option to purchase certain Burleigh County real property and quieting title to the property in Margaret McCormick and Judy Hertz. Because the Supreme Court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Deckerts did not properly exercise the gratuitous option before it was revoked, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Deckert v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Marina Pacifica was built on Long Beach waterfront land owned by McGrath and leased to the limited partnership (LP) in the 1970s. The ground lease was subdivided into 570 leases, one for each condominium unit. When LP sold a unit, it assigned the unit lease to the purchaser. The leases required owners to pay monthly rent to McGrath and an “assignment fee” to LP. Both payments were nominal ($15) until 2006, when they would be recalculated so that together, they would equal 10 percent of the value of the underlying land. In 1999, the Homeowners Association purchased the underlying land from McGrath for $17 million. Each owner paid a pro rata share. Owners no longer pay rent. The HOA attempted to buy out the assignment fee before the 2006 adjustment. In 2000, it purchased the interests of two limited partners (56.25 percent) for $5 million. It was unable to reach agreement with Lansdale to buy his 43.75 percent interest. Litigation resulted in a finding that the land’s fair market value was $60,615,500. The HOA instructed owners not to pay and filed suit, alleging that the assignment fee is invalid or overstated, and that the purchase of the underlying land extinguished the lease. The court of appeal reversed a holding that the assignment fee was an invalid transfer fee after December 31, 2008, under Civil Code 1098 and 1098.5 and directed the court to enter judgment for the HOA on contract claims. View "Marina Pac. Homeowners Ass'n v. So. Cal. Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Terry and Cindy Leonhardt sued Terry’s father, Delbert Leonhardt, for specific performance of an oral lease and right of first refusal. The Leonhardts alleged that they had entered into an oral lease with Delbert whereby they would have the right to lease Delbert’s farmland during the lifetime of Delbert and his wife and that Delbert orally promised them a right of first refusal to purchase the farmland after he and his wife died. The Leonhardts claimed that Delbert breached the agreements when he gave Terry notice of his intent to terminate the Leonardts’ lease. On remand, the circuit court entered judgment against the Leonhardts, concluding that no credible evidence existed to support the existence of a lifetime lease or right of first refusal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it ruled that the Leonhardts failed to meet their burden of proof that a lifetime lease and right of first refusal existed. View "Leonhardt v. Leonhardt" on Justia Law

The Avakians purchased a house with a loan secured by a properly executed deed of trust. The property was their homestead, where they lived together. Citibank refinanced the loan. Unlike the original loan, the refinancing note only listed Norair as the debtor. Citibank required that the Avakians execute another deed of trust. Norair signed the Citibank deed of trust. The next day, Burnette signed an identical deed of trust. The deeds of trust did not mention each other, and did not refer to signature of counterpart documents. Citibank recorded them as separate instruments. The Avakians received a loan modification. Around the time of Norair’s death, Burnette received notice that Citibank was taking steps to foreclose. After Norair’s death, Burnette sought a declaratory judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Burnette, finding that, because the two were living together when they signed the Citibank deeds of trust, the instruments were invalid. The Fifth Circuit reversed. Under Mississippi law, a deed of trust on a homestead is void if it is not signed by both spouses, but the Mississippi Supreme Court would likely hold that a valid deed of trust is created when husband and wife contemporaneously sign separate, identical instruments. View "Avakian v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Colorado Golf Club Holding Company LLC (CGC Holding), Harlem Algonquin LLC and James Medick proposed certification of a class action suit. They alleged a group of lenders conspired to create a fraudulent scheme to obtain non-refundable up-front fees in return for loan commitments , and misrepresented their ability and their objective to make good on the promises to meet certain financing obligations as part of a scheme to entice borrowers to pay the up-front fees. The class intended to offer generalized proof that the lenders concealed the financial history of Sandy Hutchens, the principal defendant, and his use of pseudonyms, to preserve the superficial integrity of the operation. The borrowers argued that had they known about this pretense, no putative class member would have taken part in the financial transactions that caused each to lose its up-front fees, amounting to millions of dollars of cumulative losses. The ultimate issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the class could pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In opposing the claims, the lenders argued that each class member would have to demonstrate that it relied on the lenders’ misrepresentations or omissions to satisfy RICO’s causation element, making a single trial unwieldy and unworkable. The Tenth Circuit held that the lenders were wrong in this respect: RICO class-action plaintiffs are not entitled to an evidentiary presumption of a factual element of a claim. The Court agreed with the district court that a class could be certified in this context. Plaintiffs' theory sufficiently allayed any concerns about Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common issues predominate over those idiosyncratic to individual class members. The Tenth Circuit affirmed certification of the class, but reversed the district court with regard to certification decision as to the lenders’ law firm and lawyers, Broad and Cassel, Ronald Gache and Carl Romano. Because several claims were not properly before the Court in this interlocutory appeal, the Court declined to address: (1) whether plaintiffs’ claims constituted an impermissible extraterritorial application of RICO; (2) whether the plaintiffs could prove proximate cause; or (3) whether the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over certain defendants. View "CGC Holding v. Gache" on Justia Law

In 2006, Thompson signed a $354,800 mortgage note with AME as the lender. Several sections of the note and deed of trust noted AME’s intent to transfer the note. Its signature page contains a signed, undated stamp memorializing AME’s transfer to Countrywide and another signed, undated endorsement from Countrywide to blank. BOA purchased Countrywide and has the note. In 2012, BOA offered to short-sell her house in lieu of foreclosure. Thompson requested modification of her repayment terms under the HAMP program (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 12 U.S.C. 5201), that gives lenders incentives to offer modifications to borrowers with a payment-to-income ratio over 31%. Thompson claims that she complied with numerous document requests. BOA never granted her application. She sued BOA, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, and unidentified persons she believes to be the note’s true owners, claiming: that BOA falsely induced her to sign the mortgage by pretending it was an actual lender; that her title is clouded by the note’s transfer; and that BOA fraudulently induced her to seek modification, knowing it lacked authority to modify her terms or intending to drive her into foreclosure. The district court dismissed for failure to comply with pleading standards. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law