Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Ash Park, LLC entered into a one-party listing contract with Re/Max Select, LLC providing that Ash Park shall pay a broker’s commission to Re/Max if Ash Park enters into an “enforceable contract” for the sale of a parcel of vacant land. Ash Park entered into a contract for the sale of the land with Alexander & Bishop, LLC, but Alexander & Bishop later breached the purchase contract, and the sale of the land was never consummated. The circuit court declared that Ash Park owed no broker’s commission to Re/Max and ordered Re/Max’s broker lien discharged from the property. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the purchase contract between Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop constituted an “enforceable contract” within the meaning of the listing contract between Ash Park and Re/Max, and therefore, Re/Max was entitled to a broker’s commission even though Alexander & Bishop breached the purchase contract and the sale was never consummated. View "Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd." on Justia Law

Graham sold insurance for American Family from 1988 until 2011. In 1996, they entered into an Agent Agreement. In 2010, following a customer complaint, American Family concluded that Graham had increased coverage and added endorsements without customer permission, increasing premiums; improperly applied multi-vehicle discounts to accounts with only one car; and changed vehicle-rating symbols used to assign risk and determine appropriate premiums for automobile insurance. American Famly terminated the Agreement. Weeks later, Graham formed an independent agency and sent letters to approximately 1,500 of his former American Family customers telling them he no longer represented American Family and had signed an agreement not to solicit or induce former customers for one year, but was not prohibited from serving needs not covered by American Family. Graham stated he now represented over 50 companies and could offer clients “more choices, expanded coverage, and excellent rates” that might be “better suited for your needs.” If a former customer contacted Graham, the customer was asked to sign a “non-inducement form.” American Family sued. Graham counterclaimed for wrongful termination. American Family asserted that Graham’s conduct qualified as “dishonest,” obviating the need for notice under the Agreement. The Eighth Circuit affirmed enforcement of a stipulated damages clause in the Agreement, in favor of American Family. View "Am. Family Mut, Ins. Co. v. Graham" on Justia Law

Comar filed suit against vessel-owning LLCs after the LLCs decided to terminate an agreement with Comar in which Comar would manage the vessels on behalf of the LLCs. JPMorgan and Allegiance provided the financing for the vessel purchases and intervened to defend their preferred ship mortgages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan and Allegiance. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that breach of the management agreements did not give rise to maritime liens; the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Allegiance and JPMorgan; and the court did not reach whether the district court’s alternate holding that Comar was a joint venturer and therefore foreclosed from asserting a maritime lien was erroneous. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in concluding that the termination-fee provision is unenforceable; the district court’s award to Comar is plausible in light of the record and not clearly erroneous; the district court did not clearly err in finding that Comar acted in bad faith when arresting the vessels and did not rely on legal advice in good faith; the district court did not clearly err in denying lost-profit and lost-equity damages; and the court concluded that the district court did not commit any other errors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics" on Justia Law

In "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC," (759 SE2d 886 (2014)), the Court of Appeals affirmed, among other rulings, the trial court’s determination that Vinings Bank was not entitled to summary judgment with regard to a counterclaim for conversion brought against the Bank by Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC ("B&G"). This case stemmed from a defaulted $1.4 million business loan. The bank made the loan to Wagner Enterprises, Inc., which used as collateral, a security interest in all of its accounts and accounts receivable, including Wagner's contract to provide drywall services for general contractor B&G. Wagner defaulted on the loan, and the Bank filed suit against B&G seeking to collect on Wagner's accounts receivable. B&G counterclaimed for conversion, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The bank appealed the denial of its motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In affirming the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether B&G had any right to assert a counterclaim against the bank for conversion of funds due to Wagner's subcontractors. The Supreme Court found that B&G had no direct relationship with the Bank, B&G was not, itself, a subcontractor of Wagner entitled to any of Wagner's funds, B&G did not have direct contractual relationships with any of Wagner's subcontractors, and B&G had no fiduciary relationship with any of Wagner's subcontractors. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Wagner or Wagner's affected subcontractors assigned B&G any of their rights. "Therefore, even if we assume without deciding that funds in [Wagner's] account were held in a constructive trust for the benefit of [Wagner's] subcontractors, B&G is not the party to assert those rights and had no standing to do so." View "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC" on Justia Law

Wild is the sole member of Braveheart, LLC, which is one of two members of another limited liability company, Catalyst. In 2008, Catalyst borrowed $500,000 from Laurus. Wild signed a personal guaranty as security for Catalyst's loan. The guaranty did not expressly extend Wild's promise to Laurus's "successors and assigns," but it also did not expressly prohibit assignment of the guaranty. Years later, Laurus assigned the Catalyst promissory note to Avnet as part of a forbearance agreement on a debt Laurus owed to Avnet. An attorney for Avnet contacted Catalyst demanding payment of the $500,000 loan plus interest. When Catalyst did not make any payments, Avnet's attorney contacted Wild and demanded that he honor his personal guaranty. When Wild did not honor the guaranty, Avnet filed suit. Catalyst did not respond; a $770,065.80 default judgment entered against the company. Wild contended his guaranty was a "special guaranty" (directed solely to a specific creditor) rather than a "general guaranty" and that a special guaranty could not be assigned under Iowa law. After examining Iowa law, the district court determined the Iowa Supreme Court would allow enforcement of Wild's personal guaranty by Avnet. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Avnet, Inc. v. Wild" on Justia Law

Prentice Delon Hyler sought health care services from Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC (Plaintiff) after she was injured in an automobile accident. Hyler executed an “Assignment of Rights” to Plaintiff for medical benefits payable to Hyler by Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie was the automobile liability insurance provider for the opposing driver involved in the accident. Erie and Hyler entered into a settlement agreement providing that Erie would pay Hyler $8,510 for claims relating to the accident. Plaintiff sued both Erie and Hyler seeking to recover the $5,010 it was owed from Hyler. The trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Assignment of Rights was not a valid assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assignment in this case was ineffective. View "Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Hyler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint claiming to have rendered to Defendants financial advisory services for nine project groups of investment opportunities. Plaintiff sought recovery based on theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending that the claims for compensation for the advisory services Plaintiff allegedly performed were subject to the statute of frauds. Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint in part. The Appellate Division modified by granting the motion in its entirety and dismissing the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order by denying those parts of Defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss the amended complaint with respect to five of the nine project groups, holding that the statute of frauds does not bar the causes of action with respect to those groups. View "JF Capital Advisors, LLC v. Lightstone Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Jose Santoyo appealed a judgment that awarded damages to Darwin Savre for overpayments under the parties' lease and purchase option agreement and dismissed Santoyo's counterclaim for damages to the leased property. Savre owned and operated Savre's Heavy Truck & Auto Repair in Fargo. Santoyo owned the two parcels of real property and building that are the subject of the leases and option agreement in this case. The original lease term was from June 15, 2008, to June 15, 2010, with Savre paying rent of $2,300 per month until June 15, 2009, at which time the rent would increase to $2,708.33. About the time of the rent increase, Savre and Santoyo entered into a "Lease to Purchase Option Agreement." Although the lease and option agreement required Savre to pay his monthly rent payments on the first of each month, Savre was frequently late in his payments from the beginning of the lease. Santoyo accepted the payments and did not give Savre written notice of any intent to terminate the lease based on Savre's late payment. Savre made monthly payments in varying amounts under the option agreement, and the district court found he paid at least a total of $4,000 each month. In the fall of 2012, Savre and another individual formed JDDS, LLC, intending to use the entity to finance the purchase of Santoyo's property. The district court found, however, that Savre did not attempt to assign, convey, delegate or transfer his purchase option to JDDS. In late 2012, Savre made his first attempt to exercise his option to purchase the property with a handwritten notice to Santoyo. In early 2013, Savre made a second attempt to exercise the option with another handwritten notice to Santoyo. Santoyo did not respond to Savre. By the time of the second attempt to exercise the option, Savre had paid at least $180,000 in monthly payments, satisfying an option agreement requirement. After Santoyo did not sell him the property, Savre stopped making monthly payments. Santoyo initiated eviction proceedings against Savre in the district court. The court granted the eviction and entered judgment against Savre for unpaid rent and Santoyo's costs and disbursements. Savre vacated Santoyo's property at the end of June 2013 and began leasing a different space in Fargo. Savre subsequently commenced this action, alleging that Santoyo breached the option agreement when he failed to sell the property leased to Savre after he exercised his option and that Santoyo had been unjustly enriched. Santoyo denied the allegations and counterclaimed, alleging Savre violated his contractual and statutory duties by damaging the property upon being evicted from the premises. Santoyo argued the district court erred as a matter of law when the court concluded Santoyo had a contractual duty to sell his property to a third party that did not exist at the time of the agreement and had no rights under the agreement. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding that Santoyo had breached the agreement and that Santoyo had waived strict compliance with the option agreement's terms when he accepted Savre's late lease payments. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to explain dismissal of Santoyo's counterclaim for damages. The Court accordingly affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Savre v. Santoyo" on Justia Law

The Butte Local Development Corporation (BLDC) filed a complaint against Masters Group International alleging that Masters had failed to pay its obligations under a loan agreement, as modified. Masters filed a third-party complaint against Comerica Bank, alleging, among other claims, that Comerica breached a Forbearance Agreement. A jury found Masters liable to BLDC for $275,251 and found Comerica liable to Masters for a total of $52,037,593, which included punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Comerica, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying Comerica’s severance motion; (2) the district court erred in applying Montana law despite the existence of a contractual Michigan choice-of-law provision, and had the district court properly applied Michigan law, Masters’ tort claims would not have been permitted to go to the jury as stand-alone tort claims, and the jury’s award of $10.5 million in punitive damages must be vacated; (3) the law of both Montana and Michigan supports the district court’s decision to submit the companion questions of contract formation and waiver to the jury; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by allowing Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) evidence to be presented to the jury. Remanded for a new trial on the contract claims applying Michigan law. View "Masters Group Int’l v. Comerica Bank" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of harassment. Defendant attended his sentencing hearing without his lawyer. After a brief colloquy with Defendant, the district court found that Defendant had validly waived his right to counsel. The court then sentenced Defendant to the maximum five-day jail term allowed for a term of probation for the harassment offense. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) upheld Defendant’s sentence, concluding that Defendant waived his right to counsel. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that the record did not support a finding that Defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made. View "State v. Phua" on Justia Law