Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on a coal mining lease in Wyoming originally executed in 1986 between Rock Springs Royalty Company and Bridger Coal Company. Under this lease, Bridger gained exclusive rights to mine coal from a specified area (the “Nine Mile Lease”) and was required to mine at least forty-five percent of the total coal from both the leased lands and “Adjoining Lands” every five years. Bridger was obligated to pay production royalties based on actual coal mined or, if it failed to meet the threshold, advance royalties based on projected production. For nearly thirty years, payments proceeded without issue. In 2020, Bridger, anticipating it would not meet the production threshold, paid an advance royalty, but Wildcat Coal LLC, which had succeeded as lessor, objected to the calculation, particularly the definition of “Adjoining Lands.” Bridger then withheld future royalties to recover what it claimed was an overpayment, prompting Wildcat to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment for Wildcat, finding Bridger’s definition of “Adjoining Lands” was incorrect and that the term included both public and private lands as well as surface and underground mining. In a footnote, the district court sua sponte required Bridger to recalculate all royalties paid since 1986, although neither party had requested this. Bridger subsequently moved to correct the order, arguing that a thirty-six-month protest provision in the lease barred recalculation for earlier years, but the district court denied the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that the lease’s protest provision precluded recalculation of royalties for payments made before 2016, reversed the district court’s order requiring recalculation from 1986, affirmed the district court’s interpretation of “Adjoining Lands,” and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wildcat Coal v. Pacific Minerals" on Justia Law

A condominium resident entered into an agreement with the developer, the unit owners’ association, and other unit owners after concerns were raised about infrastructure and proposed changes to the condominium plan. The agreement required the developer to complete infrastructure work, pay a sum to the association, and convey a vacant lot to the association in exchange for the unit owners withdrawing their opposition to a planning board application. The agreement included a provision requiring planning board approval of the developer’s application by March 1, 2023, as a condition for the parties’ obligations. The planning board, however, did not approve the application until March 28, 2023. After learning that the lot was to be sold to a third party, the resident sued for specific performance of the agreement.The Superior Court (York County) granted the developer’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the failure to obtain planning board approval by the specified date was an unmet condition precedent, discharging all parties from their obligations under the agreement. The court also dismissed the resident’s claims for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief on independent grounds.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the timing requirement for planning board approval was necessarily a material condition precedent as a matter of law. The Court held that, in actions seeking equitable relief such as specific performance, whether time is of the essence is a factual question dependent on the intent of the parties and the circumstances. The Court concluded that the materiality of the March 1 deadline could not be determined solely from the pleadings, and that the complaint alleged facts which, if proven, could entitle the resident to relief. The Court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Constance L. Beane v. Village on Great Brook, LLC" on Justia Law

Neils Point, LLC owns a farm property in Harpswell, Maine, which it leased to Joseph and Laura Grady for agricultural use. The Gradys resided on the property and operated the farm under successive lease agreements, culminating in a 2017 extension titled “Commercial Agricultural Lease Agreement.” This lease specified that it was not a residential rental, set rent as a percentage of the farm’s net proceeds, and required arbitration for disputes. Neils Point alleged that the Gradys breached the lease by miscalculating rent, failing to pay on time, and not using the land as productive cropland.After Neils Point initiated arbitration in 2024, the Gradys responded by admitting the dispute was subject to arbitration and made their own arbitration demand under the lease. The arbitration hearing was held in July 2025, with both parties participating fully and without objection to either the process or the arbitrability of the dispute. The arbitrator found in favor of Neils Point, concluding that the Gradys breached the lease by improperly deducting expenses, failing to pay rent, and not maintaining the farm’s productivity. Damages were awarded, and the Gradys were ordered to vacate the property.The Cumberland County Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Gradys’ subsequent motion to vacate, in which they argued for the first time that the arbitration provision was void because the lease was residential and the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Gradys’ participation in arbitration without objection waived their right to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or the arbitrator’s authority. The Court further held that the arbitrator’s construction of the lease was rational, and thus confirmation of the award was proper. View "Neils Point, LLC v. Grady" on Justia Law

Matthew Goforth, through MG Management Co., LLC, entered a dealer agreement with Sears Authorized Home Stores that included a broad non-compete provision, extending restrictions to his spouse, Malinda Goforth. After Matt decided not to renew the agreement, Sears suspected the Goforths would open a competing business and initiated arbitration, seeking to enforce the non-compete. The Goforths opposed enforcement, asserting the provision was unreasonable. The arbitrator initially denied emergency injunctive relief but later, upon learning that Matt and Malinda were opening Goforth Home & Lawn, granted interim relief enforcing the non-compete and added Malinda and her company as parties. A final arbitration award enforced the non-compete, but an appellate arbitrator later held the provision unenforceable while affirming attorneys’ fees to Sears. Subsequently, the Goforths initiated a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator determined their antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been brought in the first arbitration.Following Sears’s bankruptcy, the Goforths brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Sears’s owners, Transform Holdco, LLC and affiliates, asserting the same antitrust claims. Transform moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were compulsory counterclaims barred by their failure to raise them in the initial arbitration. The district court agreed, holding the claims accrued upon Sears’s initiation of the first arbitration and were thus subject to compulsory counterclaim rules. The court granted summary judgment for Transform and did not address alternative grounds or the Goforths’ partial summary judgment motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Goforths’ antitrust claims accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration, making them compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. The court also held that Malinda and her company were bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision. View "Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC" on Justia Law

A physician assistant was employed at a medical spa operated by a corporation in Vermont, with the president as a co-defendant. The plaintiff worked part-time initially, then full-time beginning in 2018. Her employment agreement was amended that year to provide an annual salary, a bonus formula based on the employer’s gross sales for each calendar year, and paid vacation. She received bonuses in 2018 and 2019 but was terminated in December 2020 without receiving a bonus or payment for unused paid time off for that year.The plaintiff sued in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, alleging breach of contract for underpaid bonuses in 2018 and 2019, failure to pay the 2020 bonus and unused PTO, and statutory wage violations. The trial was split, with contractual claims presented to a jury and wage claims to the court. After the plaintiff’s case, the court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on the 2020 claims, finding insufficient evidence for breach or violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury found for the plaintiff on her bonus claims for 2018 and 2019, awarding damages, which the court doubled under Vermont’s wage statutes. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law post-trial, arguing insufficient evidence of gross sales, and the trial court ultimately granted their motion after reconsideration, entering judgment for defendants on all counts.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that the employer’s gross sales exceeded the thresholds required for higher bonuses in 2018 and 2019. The Court also affirmed judgment for defendants on the 2020 bonus and PTO claims, holding there was no evidence of bad faith or intent to deprive the plaintiff of accrued benefits. The Court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees for defendants and remanded for reconsideration of that request. View "Rossetti v. Bare, Ltd." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute among siblings arising from mutual wills executed by their parents, John and Patricia, after their divorce. The parents structured their assets as joint tenancies with rights of survivorship, intending that the survivor would use the property during their lifetime and then have it pass equally to their three children upon death. In 1997, both parents executed mutual wills in Arizona, agreeing not to alter or revoke them without mutual consent, and expressing a clear intention that all property owned at death would be divided equally among their children. After John’s death in 2010, all jointly titled assets passed to Patricia outside probate. Patricia later executed a new will in 2006, disinheriting her daughter Susan except for small bequests to Susan’s children and transferring major properties to her other two children, Gregory and Nancy, before she died in 2016.A Vermont probate court allowed Patricia’s 2006 will, rejecting Susan’s attempt to admit the earlier will. The Vermont Supreme Court, in a prior appeal, affirmed the admission of the 2006 will but noted Susan might have other remedies. Susan subsequently brought civil claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the Vermont Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division. The trial court found for Susan on her unjust enrichment claims against Gregory and Nancy, holding that the mutual wills formed a binding contract to divide all property equally among the siblings and that Patricia breached it by transferring properties and disinheriting Susan.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court held that the mutual wills were a binding contract requiring equal distribution of all property owned by the survivor at death, regardless of how it was acquired. The Court found that Patricia’s actions unjustly enriched Gregory and Nancy and upheld the remedies awarded, including a monetary judgment and a constructive trust. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest on the monetary portion of the judgment. View "Inouye v. Estate of McHugo" on Justia Law

A law firm, represented by its own attorney, sued a former client to recover unpaid fees for legal services rendered during divorce and restraining order proceedings. A jury found in favor of the law firm, awarding it over $21,000. After prevailing, the firm sought to recover additional attorney fees under a provision in its retainer agreement that specifically stated the firm could collect such fees—even if it represented itself—without limitation by California Civil Code section 1717 or the California Supreme Court’s decision in Trope v. Katz.Following the jury verdict, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the law firm's motion for attorney fees. The court found that the retainer provision attempting to waive the limitations set by Trope v. Katz and section 1717 was contrary to public policy, oppressive, and unenforceable. The law firm appealed this denial, arguing that the express waiver in its agreement should entitle it to collect attorney fees even as a self-represented attorney.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The appellate court conducted a de novo review, focusing on whether the retainer agreement’s waiver provision could circumvent the statutory and public policy restrictions established by Trope v. Katz and Civil Code section 1717. The court held that parties cannot contract around section 1717’s requirement that attorney fees be “incurred,” nor override public policy by allowing self-represented attorneys to recover such fees. The court further ruled that section 1021 did not provide a separate basis for recovery in this context. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s order denying the law firm's motion for attorney fees. View "The Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Arteaga" on Justia Law

A commercial landlord leased a property to an individual, Sina, who stopped paying rent soon after the lease began, causing significant unpaid rent and property damage. The landlord regained possession of the property and found it had been gutted. The landlord sued Sina for breach of contract and prevailed at trial, but the initial judgment was reversed on appeal due to a change in parol evidence law. On retrial before a referee, the landlord again prevailed, with the referee finding substantial damages and the trial court adopting the referee’s decision, entering judgment for the landlord. This judgment was affirmed on appeal.After the second judgment, Sina and his wife filed for bankruptcy. During related bankruptcy proceedings, the landlord discovered new evidence revealing that Sina, his brothers, their wives, and a family-owned corporation, Amey, were all part of a longstanding “one-for-all” family partnership. The landlord moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to amend the judgment to add these family members and Amey as judgment debtors, arguing that they were the true parties in interest and had been virtually represented in the litigation by Sina.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the trial court's decision to amend the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that the family members and Amey were part of a partnership that controlled the litigation and benefited from it. The court held that under Code of Civil Procedure section 187, a court may amend a judgment to add parties who had sufficient control of the litigation and unity of interest with the original judgment debtor, even if traditional alter ego requirements are not strictly met. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the addition of the individual partners and Amey as judgment debtors. View "8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad" on Justia Law

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

The plaintiff participated in a clinical trial for an experimental COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca in November 2020. Before receiving the vaccine, she signed an informed-consent form stating that AstraZeneca would compensate her for injuries caused by the vaccine, including providing medical care and reimbursement, and that the company had an insurance policy to cover such costs. The form also disclosed that federal law may limit her right to sue for vaccine-related injuries, referencing the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which provides broad immunity to vaccine manufacturers during a public health emergency.After suffering debilitating medical injuries from the vaccine, the plaintiff requested compensation and care from AstraZeneca, which was denied. She then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging breach of contract and breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. AstraZeneca moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the PREP Act immunized it from liability. The district court denied the motion, holding that the PREP Act’s immunity provision applies only to tort claims, not to contract-based claims. The court further reserved judgment on whether AstraZeneca had waived its statutory immunity in the informed-consent form.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s ruling. The appellate court held that the PREP Act’s immunity provision applies to “all claims for loss,” including those arising from breach of contract, provided they bear a causal relationship to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure like a vaccine. The court remanded the case for the district court to consider whether AstraZeneca waived immunity in the informed-consent form. View "Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB" on Justia Law