Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the named Defendant in this action, and others formed a limited liability company (the LLC) to purchase and redevelop certain property. After the LLC acquired the property, Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of two loans from a Bank. In the meantime, Plaintiff, Defendant, and others entered into backstop guarantee agreements that provided protection to Plaintiff in the event he was required to honor his personal guarantees to the Bank. The Bank later commenced foreclosure proceedings against the LLC and Plaintiff as guarantor. The court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, and the Bank sought a deficiency judgment against the Plaintiff. The Bank and Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendants to enforce the backstop guarantee agreements. The trial court concluded that the backstop guarantee agreements were unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed. Defendant appealed, claiming that Plaintiff’s tax treatment of the debt that Defendant guaranteed effectively divested Plaintiff of his interest in the debt, and therefore, Plaintiff had no standing to enforce the backstop guarantee agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had standing to enforce the agreement.View "One Country, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2006, Richard Myers owned the property at issue in this case. At the time, the property was subject to a deed of trust in favor of First Horizon Home Loans. Myers enlisted Michael Horn and his company, Frontier Development Group (FDG) to build a residence on the property, which First Horizon financed. However, in April of 2007, Myers filed for bankruptcy, and First Horizon rescinded the construction loan and instructed FDG to halt construction when the project was only fifty percent complete. The structure was left exposed to the elements for fourteen months. Following Myers' bankruptcy, foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and Myers hired Kathleen Horn (Michael Horn's wife), of Windermere Real Estate/Teton Valley to list the property for sale. The Caravellas, who were Ohio residents, looking for property in the Teton Valley, contacted their real estate agent who put them in touch with Kathleen Horn who provided them with information on the stalled Myers project. Kathleen Horn eventually put the Caravellas in touch with Michael Horn. The Caravellas traveled to Idaho, met with Kathleen Horn, and spent two days inspecting the property. The Caravellas testified that Kathleen Horn minimized issues with the house, telling them that it was "in good shape,""structurally sound,"and a "great house."The Caravellas chose not to have a professional inspection performed and closed on May 5, 2008. After closing, the Caravellas and Michael Horn agreed that Horn would complete construction on the house in accordance with Myers' original plans. In reaching this agreement, the Caravellas testified that they believed they were dealing with Horn as an individual. The total contract price for the first phase of work that the Caravellas authorized was $88,500. However, the Caravellas paid FDG $138,097.24 for the first phase before refusing to pay any more. Much of the money that the Caravellas paid to FDG was for unauthorized work or work that was completed in a nonconforming or substandard manner. The Caravellas hired a second builder to complete the first phase and to remedy the substandard work. FDG initiated this action by filing a complaint to foreclose on a lien for construction services and building materials provided to, but not paid for by, the Caravellas. The Caravellas filed an amended counterclaim alleging that FDG and Horn: (1) breached the parties' contract; (2) breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act; (4) breached the implied warranty of habitability; (5) committed slander of title; (6) committed fraud and misrepresentation; (7) engaged in a civil conspiracy; and (8) acted negligently. The district court held that FDG's lien was defective and dismissed it. The district court also held that FDG breached its contract with the Caravellas by: (1) failing to complete agreed upon work in conformity with the plans and in a workmanlike manner; (2) charging the Caravellas for unauthorized and defective work; and (3) substantially overbilling the Caravellas for work and materials that were not authorized and never provided. As to the Caravellas' fraud counterclaim, the district court concluded that the Caravellas failed to establish all nine elements of fraud and dismissed the claim. The district court also concluded that Horn was not personally liable. The district court awarded the Caravellas $113,775.45 in attorney fees, $5,484.83 in costs as a matter of right, and $200.00 in discretionary costs. The Caravellas timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by applying the incorrect evidentiary standard to the Caravellas' fraud counterclaim, but that error was harmless. The Court affirmed that portion of the district court's judgment dismissing the Caravellas' fraud claim, and reversed that portion of the judgment dismissing the Caravellas' claims against Michael Horn personally. In all other respects, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision.View "Frontier Development Grp v. Caravella" on Justia Law

In 2011, Gerald Collins granted Garrett Prestenbach a one-year option to purchase about 150 acres of Collins's farm and pasture land for $500,000. Prestenbach agreed to make a $25,000 down payment on the property and finance the remaining $475,000 through a combination of a $225,000 USDA loan and $250,000 financing agreement with Collins. The option contract included the following details: (1) a recital of $100 consideration; (2) a township-and-range description of the property; (3) a reference to the buyer's intent to obtain a USDA loan; (4) the total purchase price; and (5) a recital that the option was irrevocable for the first three months and, after three months, the option could be revoked by giving ten days' written notice. The parties also agreed that Collins would allow the USDA to inspect the property before closing. About a month after giving Prestenbach the option to purchase his land, another buyer offered to buy Collins's property immediately. Collins attempted to persuade Prestenbach to give up his option so he could sell to the other party, but Prestenbach refused and quickly recorded the option contract to prevent the sale. By early December, relations between Collins and Prestenbach had deteriorated. Collins's attorney sent Prestenbach a letter attempting to terminate the one-year option "upon the latter to occur of December 15th, its date of expiration, or ten (10) days after receipt of this notice." Prestenbach responded by hand-delivering a letter exercising his option to purchase. At that time, the USDA loan process was nearly complete, and on December 22, 2011, the USDA conditionally approved Prestenbach's loan. Prestenbach tried to set a closing date for the loan, but Collins refused to move forward with the closing. Claiming that the option to purchase had been terminated, Collins denied the USDA's request to inspect the property. He then filed a quiet-title action against Prestenbach. Prestenbach filed an answer and a counterclaim for specific performance, stating he was "ready, willing, and able" to close the deal. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The chancellor granted Collins's motion for summary judgment and denied Prestenbach's motion, finding that Prestenbach was not entitled to specific performance because, at the time he exercised his option, he could not pay the entire purchase price. Prestenbach appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case "to correct a fundamental misunderstanding of the law on option contracts and specific performance." The option holder timely exercised his option to purchase and is entitled to specific performance, so the Court reversed and remanded.View "Prestenbach, Jr. v. Collins" on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant entered into a settlement agreement to sell her property to Blueberry and then refused to consummate the sale. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the agreement and ordered defendant to complete the sale. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's post-judgment order appointing the clerk of the court as an elisor to execute the escrow agreement on behalf of defendant. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the trial court's order was proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(4), which empowers the court to compel obedience to its judgments.View "Blueberry Properties v. Chow" on Justia Law

Roger and Barbara Stephens owned a parcel of real property consisting of about 270 acres on the west side of the highway and another parcel consisting of about 83 acres on the east side of the highway. They hired a realtor to sell the parcel on the west side of the highway. The realtor asked Northern Title Company of Idaho, Inc., to begin the initial title work for a sale of the property, including preparing a legal description for the sale of the parcel on the west side of the highway. Stephen Cummings noticed a "For Sale" sign on the Stephenses' property. Cummings negotiated to purchase the Stephens' property. He was faxed a copy of the commitment for title insurance issued in connection with the transaction. The legal description in the document included the Stephenses' property on both sides of the highway and two additional parcels they did not own. Based upon the legal description in those documents, Cummings believed that the property being sold included both parcels of the Stephenses' property. Northern Title discovered that the legal description it had prepared for use in the real estate contract and its title commitment for that transaction erroneously included the Stephenses' real property located east of the highway and two parcels of land they did not own. The legal description consisted of five paragraphs, each describing a separate parcel of real property. In an effort to correct that error, Northern Title created a revised legal description by inserting between the first and second paragraphs the words, "Except all of that portion of the following described land lying easterly of U.S. Highway 30." That change excluded the two parcels of property not owned by the Stephenses, but it did not exclude their land lying east of the highway because it was described in the first paragraph. On the date of closing, Northern Title recorded a warranty deed (Original Deed) granting to Cummings the real property described in the revised legal description, which was attached to the deed as Exhibit A. The legal description included the Stephenses' property on the east side of the highway. Mr. Stephens went to the county courthouse to pay the real estate taxes on the 83 acres of land east of the highway and was informed that he no longer owned that property. Cummings filed this action against Mr. Stephens over the erroneous deed. Stephens answered, denying Cummings's claims, and filed a third-party claim against Northern Title. He later dropped his third-party claim in exchange for Northern Title agreeing to indemnify him from any losses. Stephens then filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there was a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake in the legal description of the real property being sold. The district court held that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, but it granted the motion on the ground that the undisputed evidence showed a unilateral mistake. One of the realtors had filed an affidavit stating that prior to the sale he had told Mr. Cummings that only the land west of the highway was being sold, and Mr. Cummings did not deny that fact. Cummings successfully moved for reconsideration, with the district court finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to what Cummings had been told about what property he was purchasing. Cummings then amended his complaint, adding Northern Title as a defendant and alleging that by recording the Correction Deed, Stephens and Northern Title breached the warranties of title in the Original Deed, converted the 83 acres lying east of the highway, and slandered Cummings's title to the real property. The district court granted Stephens's motion for involuntary dismissal as to all of the claims against him. And in its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court denied all of Cummings's claims against Northern Title except one. It found that Northern Title acted negligently as a title and abstract company, and it awarded Cummings damages in the sum of $50,000, which was the sum he had paid to obtain an assignment of its contract to purchase the Stephenses' property. The court awarded Mr. Stephens costs and attorney fees against Cummings, and it awarded Mr. Cummings costs and attorney fees against Northern Title. Mr. Cummings appealed and Northern Title cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Cummings' claims against Stephens, and reversed claims against Northern Title on the ground that it assumed the duty of being an abstractor of title.View "Cummings v. Stephens" on Justia Law

In 1999, Cooper and Robert L. Flowers formed C&F Enterprises, LLC. C&F owned a parcel of property in Huntsville, upon which it built a shopping center known as College Plaza. Pursuant to an "Amended and Restated Operating Agreement," MTA, Inc. became a member of C&F. The operating agreement provided that MTA, Flowers, and Cooper each owned a one-third interest in C&F. C&F borrowed $650,000 from the Southern Development Council, Inc. ("SDC"), a community-development program; that debt was memorialized by a promissory note. On the same day, SDC assigned the note to the Small Business Administration ("the SBA"). Cooper and Flowers personally guaranteed the indebtedness owed under the note. A few years later, C&F received a foreclosure letter with respect to the note. Counsel for MTA sent Cooper a letter informing him of MTA's intent to exercise its right of first refusal pursuant to section 16 of the operating agreement. In 2012, MTA filed a complaint against Cooper and Flowers, alleging multiple issues, but of pertinence for this appeal, the complaint alleged a count of contribution and "demand[ed] judgment in [MTA's] favor and against Cooper in the amount of $270,902.00, and Flowers in the amount of $270,902.00." In the alternative, "[MTA] demand[ed] judgment in its favor and against Cooper and Flowers for their individual pro rata contribution shares as determined at trial." Cooper filed a motion to dismiss; the trial court denied the motion. Cooper then answered the complaint. Thereafter, MTA filed a motion for a summary judgment against Cooper and Flowers. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting MTA's summary-judgment motion. Because genuine issues of material fact still remained at the time the trial court granted summary judgment, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in this respect. The trial court's order was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.View "Cooper v. MTA, Inc." on Justia Law

This case was one of a number of cases which have, in the aftermath of the "Great Recession" that hit Riverside and San Bernadino counties particarly hard. This appeal stemmed from the construction of a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont. The developer of the store was Inland-LCG Beaumont, LLC, and the general contractor was 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. Somewhere in the process of construction, the money dried up and 361 refused to pay its subcontractors for work they had done. Those subcontractors included Cass Construction, TNT Grading Inc., Palomar Grading & Paving and R3 Contractors. These four subcontractors recorded mechanic’s liens and sued to foreclose those liens. With one exception they obtained judgments of foreclosure. The one exception was TNT, who, by the time of the trial to foreclose its mechanic’s lien, was a suspended corporation and thus unable to prosecute an action. The two owners of the property, Kohl’s and Wells Fargo, appealed the judgments obtained by the three successful subcontractors, Cass, R3 and Palomar Grading. The Court of Appeal took a "soup-to-nuts" approach in reviewing the multiple issues presented on appeal, and affirmed in all respects except to the degree that liens of Palomar Grading and Cass should include prejudgment interest. To that degree the Court reversed the judgment and remanded it with instructions to the trial court to recalculate the prejudgment interest at 7 percent. On balance, Cass and R3 were still the prevailing parties in this appeal: Of 10 issues raised, they prevailed, either singly or together, in 9. They recovered their costs on appeal from Kohl’s and Wells Fargo. For Palomar Grading, the only issue on which it has appeared in this appeal was the issue of the proper rate of prejudgment interest, and on that issue it lost. "However, it would be unfair to allow Kohl’s and Wells Fargo to recover all their appellate costs from Palomar Grading because they won on the lone prejudgment interest rate issue. Most of this appeal has concerned their unsuccessful challenges to the foreclosure judgments obtained by Cass and R3."View "Palomar Grading v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Ron Willemsen, a purchaser of vacant land, sued various parties involved in the sale of the land, including defendant-respondent AppraisalPacific, Inc., the appraisal company hired by Willemsen’s lender. AppraisalPacific, Inc. and its individual appraisers, moved for summary judgment, in which they asserted that Willemsen’s negligent misrepresentation cause of action against them failed as a matter of law. The court granted the motion and Willemsen appealed. After its review, the Court of Appeal affirmed: Willemsen failed to raise a triable issue of material fact to show the AppraisalPacific Defendants intended to supply information to him to influence his decision whether to buy the property. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willemsen’s request for leave to file an amended complaint to assert a cause of action for breach of third party beneficiary contract.View "Willemsen v. Mitrosilis" on Justia Law

Kohl’s Illinois, Inc. filed a valuation complaint challenging the tax year 2010 valuation of a Kohl’s store in Marion County. The Board of Revision (BOR) dismissed the case, finding that the complaint was void because the property was subject to a tax-increment-financing (TIF) agreement that contained a covenant prohibiting the filing of a complaint against the value. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the decision of the BOR. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the BTA, holding (1) any bar to the complaint that arises from the TIF agreement is not a jurisdictional restriction, and therefore, the complaint was not void; (2) the beneficiaries of the covenant had the burden to assert the covenant as a defense against Kohl’s complaint; and (3) because the beneficiaries did not shoulder the burden to prove their entitlement to a dismissal of Kohl’s complaint, the decision of the BTA must be vacated. Remanded.View "Kohl’s Ill., Inc. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Plaintiff CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (CBRE), pursuant to a 2004 listing agreement, sought a commission after the 2005 sale of 38 acres of land in Murrieta. Arbitration proceedings between CBRE and the seller, Jefferson 38, LLC resulted in a confirmed arbitral award in CBRE’s favor, but no monetary satisfaction for CBRE because Jefferson had no assets by the time of the arbitral award and judgment. The issue this case presented to the Court of Appeal centered on CBRE’s attempt to recover damages from Jefferson’s individual members. A jury trial resulted in a $354,000 judgment in favor of CBRE. Both defendants and CBRE appealed the judgment, citing alleged errors pertaining to jury instructions, the admissibility of evidence, juror misconduct, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. Upon review, the Court of Appeal rejected the parties’ contentions, except with regard to CBRE’s entitlement to attorney fees.View "CB Richard Ellis v. Terra Nostra Consultants" on Justia Law