Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendants Citation Oil & Gas Corp., Petro-Hunt LLC, and other working interest owners appealed a district court summary judgment quieting title to an oil and gas lease in Greggory Tank. In 1982, George and Phyllis Tank executed an oil and gas lease in favor of Petro-Lewis Funds, Inc. The parties agreed to extend the primary term of the lease for three more years, ending July 15, 1989. In May 1983, the Tank 3-10 well was spudded in the northwest quarter. The well produced until October 1996. In June 1998, the Tank 3-10R well was spudded and replaced the Tank 3-10 well. The Tank 3-10R well continues to produce oil or gas. In June 1988, the Tank 13-10 well was spudded in the southwest quarter. The well continuously produced oil or gas until October 2008, and intermittently produced oil or gas until January 2012. Tank was the successor in interest to George and Phyllis Tank and was the owner of minerals in the southwest quarter of section 10. In September 2011, Tank sued the defendants, seeking to cancel the oil and gas lease to the extent it covered the southwest quarter. The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Tank's claims. The defendants argued the continued drilling and operation of oil and gas wells on the leased property maintained the lease beyond the primary term and the lease remained in full force and effect. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling the lease had expired and was no longer valid on the southwest quarter. The court determined summary judgment was appropriate because there were only issues of law to resolve, including the interpretation of an unambiguous contract and the application of undisputed facts. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tank v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

American General Contractors, Inc. ("AGC"), appealed a judgment assessing liability and awarding damages and interest for the cost of delays in the construction of the Williams County Law Enforcement Center in Williston. C&C Plumbing and Heating, LLP ("C&C"), the successful bidder for the mechanical prime contract, filed suit when construction the center was delayed approximately two years after "substantial completion" was supposed to have happened. The district court concluded it was appropriate for the County and AGC to share responsibility for providing temporary shelter and heat on the project. The court apportioned 47 percent of the liability for the costs of the delay for the three and one-half months of active interference to the County and 53 percent to AGC, for the four months delay inherent to the industry. The court awarded C&C approximately $73,000 on its claim against the County. After offsetting amounts owed between the parties, the court awarded AGC approximately $424,000 on its claim against the County. The court awarded Davis Masonry approximately $96,000 from AGC for masonry work completed under its subcontract with AGC, and rejected AGC's claimed offsets to that amount. Davis had provided heat, cover and shelter for the project during cold weather and sought $649,000 from the County and AGC for that expense including prompt payment interest. Davis had settled with the County for $530,000, and the court ruled AGC was responsible for 53 percent of the remaining $119,000, or $63,070. AGC argues the district court erred in determining AGC was liable for any of the costs incurred from the delay under its contract with the County. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "C&C Plumbing and Heating, LLP v. Williams County" on Justia Law

In January 2007, the Bank of Idaho made two construction loans to developers who planned to construct a fourplex on each of two adjoining lots in Idaho Falls. The bank loaned one sum of money to build a fourplex on Lot 1 and another sum for a fourplex on Lot 2. The bank secured a separate policy of title insurance for each lot that was issued by the predecessor of First American Title Insurance Company. Each policy included an endorsement that the parties understood would insure against loss or damage that the bank might sustain by reason of a multifamily residence not being constructed on the lot. After discussion with representatives of the city, the developers changed their original plans and built both fourplexes on Lot 2 and built a parking lot with storm water retention and landscaping on Lot 1. The developers later defaulted on their loans, and the bank foreclosed on both deeds of trust. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired each lot by making a full credit bid on all amounts due and owing on the note secured by the deed of trust. In 2010, the bank submitted a claim under the title policy issue with respect to Lot 1 to recover under the endorsement. The insurance company rejected the claim and the bank filed suit to recover under the policy. The district court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action. The bank then appealed. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the district court erred in holding that the title insurance company had no liability under the policy. The endorsement provided that "[t]he Company hereby insures the owner of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage against loss or damage which the insured shall sustain by reason of the failure of [a multifamily residence to be built on Lot 1]." The endorsement insured against "loss or damage" that the bank argued was the failure of the multifamily residence to be constructed on the lot. It did not define what constituted "loss or damage." Subsections of the pertinent indemnity clause stated limits on the insurance company's liability, but it did not define loss or damage. Accordingly, the district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of Idaho v. First American Title" on Justia Law

On November 14, 2009, sewage entered into and damaged the home of plaintiffs Justin and Brandy Porter. At the time, Plaintiffs' home was insured by defendant Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company under a "Homeowners Special Coverage Policy." Plaintiffs filed a claim for their loss, which defendant denied. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a petition in the district court for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs argued that the district court should follow "Andres v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.," (227 P.3d 1102, cert. denied, (Nov. 23, 2009)) to find that the policy was ambiguous because it contained conflicting provisions on loss caused by water damage and that the doctrine of reasonable expectations required the ambiguity to be construed in favor of coverage. Plaintiffs also argued that defendant committed bad faith when defendant wrote a policy that both includes and excludes a named peril and then denied plaintiffs coverage under the policy. Plaintiffs amended their petition to bring classwide claims on behalf of others similarly situated. Plaintiffs amended their petition a second time to allege "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and/or fraud," individually and classwide. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended petition did not address an individual or class-action fraud claim. Defendant moved to dismiss the class-action claims and the fraud claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant subsequently stated that the motion to dismiss "[did] not address any other claims" and that "a dispositive motion challenging the merits of Plaintiffs' individual breach of contract and bad faith claims [would] likely be filed in the future." The district court, however, dismissed all claims. The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss. The resolution of this issue turned on two questions: (1) whether plaintiffs' homeowners policy was ambiguous when the policy covers loss to personal property "caused by . . . accidental discharge or overflow of water from within a plumbing . . . system" (the accidental-discharge-coverage provision) and excluded coverage for loss to real and personal property "resulting directly or indirectly from . . . water which backs up through sewers or drains" (the sewer-or-drain-backup exclusion); (2) if the policy was ambiguous, whether the doctrine of reasonable expectations required the ambiguity to be construed in favor of coverage. The Supreme Court found the district court erred in dismissing the petition in its entirety when the allegations taken as true stated a claim for breach of contract. View "Porter v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Borrower borrowed $696,000 from Lenders. The note was secured by a deed of trust covering real property. Guarantor guaranteed the loan under a guaranty agreement that included a general waiver of defenses. Borrower subsequently defaulted on the loan, and Purchaser purchased the secured property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale for $487,200. The fair market value of the property was $840,000. Purchaser sued Guarantor to recover the $266,748 balance remaining on the note after applying all credits and the proceeds from the sale. Guarantor argued that under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 51.003 any deficiency owed should be offset by the difference between the fair market value and the foreclosure price. The trial court granted summary judgment for Guarantor. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) section 51.003 creates an affirmative defense, and (2) by agreeing to a general waiver of defenses in the guaranty agreement Guarantor waived his right of offset. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Guarantor waived his statutory right to an offset. View "Mehrdad v. Interstate 35/Chisam Road, L.P." on Justia Law

Borrowers applied from a home mortgage loan from Lender. During the transaction, a loan officer made an incorrect statement about lien priority. Borrowers later filed breach of fiduciary and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lender, alleging that the junior status of Lender’s lien decreased the marketability and value of their home and exposed them to increased liability. The trial court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that material issues of fact barred summary judgment on Borrowers’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that Lender’s assurance of a first priority lien on Borrowers’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Lender on both claims where no fiduciary duty existed and where Plaintiffs did not forecast evidence that they made a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the loan officer’s statements. View "Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a land installment contract that established the terms of a transfer from Plaintiffs to Defendant of a parcel of land. Defendant failed to make the payments required by the contract, and Plaintiffs commenced this action. Defendant argued that because the contract did not comply with 33 Me. Rev. Stat. 482(1) Plaintiffs were barred from obtaining relief. The district court entered a judgment of foreclosure against Defendant and ordered a writ of possession in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that, even if the contract failed to comply with section 482(1), Plaintiffs would have had could obtain possession of the property through the forcible entry and detainer process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the contract was enforceable because it was in substantial compliance with section 482(1); and (2) 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 6203-F does not require a court to order a public sale of property when ordering a foreclosure on a land installment contract. View "Thurston v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Trump Tower Chicago is a 92-story building with 486 residential condominium units, 339 hotel condominium units, retail space, a health club, ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, a hair salon, and other facilities. When the owner of a hotel condominium unit is not occupying the unit, building management can rent it to a visitor; rental income is divided with the owner’s share credited against his annual maintenance fee. Plaintiff, an 80-year-old CPA and financial planner, agreed to buy two hotel condominium units in 2006 for $2.2 million. She bought them as an investment and already owned other investment condominium units, including a residential unit in Trump Tower Chicago. The agreement gave TrumpOrg “the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to modify the Condominium Documents.” Plaintiff asked TrumpOrg to give her the right to terminate the agreement and get her deposit back if she disapproved of any such changes. TrumpOrg refused. Plaintiff signed the agreement, even though TrumpOrg had already made three changes. The next year, TrumpOrg made changes that greatly curtailed owners’ rights in the hotel facilities. Plaintiff refused to close. TrumpOrg did not seek to compel her to close, but did not return her down payment, $516,000 and canceled the purchase agreement. Plaintiff sought damages under the common law of contracts, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Condominium Property Act, and Illinois Securities Law. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Goldberg v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, L.L.C., " on Justia Law

At issue in this case was which party was entitled to insurance funds under an insurance policy on a parcel of property that sustained water damage. Stanley Gurnick and Phoenix-Gurnick, RIGP claimed they owned the property as a result of a foreclosure sale. Navigant Credit Union claimed it was entitled to the funds as the named mortgagee/loss payee in the insurance policy. The superior court decided that Navigant was entitled to the insurance proceeds because the funds were personal property under the insurance contract and Navigant was named a loss payee under that contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly determined that Navigant was entitled to the insurance proceeds. View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass'n v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendants and Plaintiff executed a purchase and sale agreement under which Defendants agreed to sell real property to Plaintiff. Later, Defendants’ attorney (“Attorney”) falsely told Plaintiffs that Defendants had received a higher offer for the property and to calculate its liquidated damages. Later, due to Attorney’s withholding of information before the closing, the parties were unable to close the sale. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance. The superior court judge concluded that Defendants anticipatorily repudiated the agreement and that Attorney’s attempt to “scuttle the deal” at closing constituted an actual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result, the court allowed Plaintiff to choose either compensatory damages, as provided by the agreement, or specific performance. Plaintiff elected to receive compensatory damages. Defendants appealed, contending that they did not commit an actual breach, and therefore, monetary damages were not available. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not err finding of an actual breach by Defendants, and therefore, the judge’s decision offering Plaintiff a choice of remedy was proper. View "K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. Prosky" on Justia Law