Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a law firm, appealed the district court's dismissal of its implied-in-fact contract and quasi-contract claims against Kraft. The dispute stemmed from the Firm's advice to Kraft regarding an antitrust claim. The court concluded that the Firm's implied-in-fact contract claim failed because the complaint does not plausibly allege that Kraft was "reasonably notified" that the Firm expected to be paid for any work completed before that point. The Firm's quasi-contract claim failed because the Firm's services were rendered simply in order to gain a business advantage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Berry Law v. Kraft Foods Group" on Justia Law

Sister and Brother were co-trustees of a family Trust established by the siblings' parents. Before their mother died, she entered into a contract for deed with Brother for the sale of 480 acres of trust farmland. After the mother died, the siblings stipulated for court supervision of the Trust. Within the Trust action, Sister sued Brother and his wife for undue influence on his contract for deed with their mother. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Brother, concluding that Sister’s claim of undue influence was barred by the statute of limitations and that any oral agreement associated with the contract for deed was barred by the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Sister did not timely bring her claim for undue influence, the circuit court correctly ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) because Sister sought to enforce her asserted interest in the sale of real estate, the circuit court correctly ruled that any oral agreement regarding the real estate was barred by the statute of frauds. View "In re Matheny Family Trust" on Justia Law

The town of Yarmouth entered into a transportation contract with the Bay Colony Railroad Corporation whereby Bay Colony was to transport solid waste from the town’s waste transfer station to a facility in Rochester. The town later notified Bay Colony that it would terminate Bay Colony’s lease of certain rail lines, which meant that Bay Colony would no longer be able to transport the town’s waste by rail. A provision in the contract provided that, in the event the lease of the rail line was terminated, the town would permit Bay Colony to continue to transport the waste by “other modes of transportation.” Bay Colony notified the town that it would continue to transport waste by truck rather than rail. The town, however, began transporting its waste with the railroad operating company that was awarded the rail lease. A jury found that the town had committed a breach of the contract. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the town’s affirmative defense that it was barred by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 160, 70A from allowing Bay Colony to transport its waste by truck failed as a matter of law; (2) a permit issued to the town by the Department of Environmental Protection did not render Bay Colony legally unable to perform the contract after it lost its rail lease; and (3) the contract remained in effect at the time of the town’s breach. View "Bay Colony R.R. Corp. v. Town of Yarmouth" on Justia Law

In 2009, Central Arkansas Water, which owns and operates Lake Maumelle as a public water supply, authorized the collection of a “watershed fee” imposed on wholesale customers, including Appellants. That same year, Pulaski County and Central Arkansas Water (collectively, Appellees) entered into a watershed protection agreement. Appellants filed suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated taxpayers, arguing that the watershed fee constituted an illegal exaction and that the the watershed protection agreement necessitated Central Arkansas Water to expend public funds illegally. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Appellees, concluding that the agreement was a proper contract for administrative services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the watershed protection agreement was a valid agreement under Arkansas law. View "Sullins v. Cent. Ark. Water" on Justia Law

BADD, L.L.C. purchased three warehouse units in Myrtle Beach. To finance the transaction, BADD executed two promissory notes. A personal guaranty was also executed by William McKown, who was a member of BADD. After BADD defaulted, the Bank brought this foreclosure action and included McKown as a party based on his status as a guarantor. In McKown's amended answer and counterclaim, he demanded a jury trial because the Bank sought a money judgment for the breach of a guaranty arrangement. McKown further sought an accounting and a determination that the guaranty agreement was unconscionable. McKown then asserted two counterclaims: (1) civil conspiracy and (2) breach of contract, both based on an alleged conspiracy between the Bank and William Rempher. Finally, McKown asserted third-party claims against Rempher. The Bank moved for an order of reference. The circuit granted the motion, referring the matter in its entirety to the master-in-equity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding McKown was entitled to a jury trial because the Bank's claim on the guaranty agreement was a separate and distinct legal claim. The Bank appealed, challenging the Court of Appeals' finding that McKown was entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that McKown was not entitled to a jury trial solely because the Bank exercised its statutory right to join him as a party in the event of a deficiency judgment. Furthermore, the Court held McKown was not entitled to a jury trial based on his counterclaims, which, while legal, were permissive. McKown waived his right to a jury trial by asserting permissive counterclaims in an equitable action. View "Carolina First Bank v. BADD, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Ironwood Country Club appealed an order that denied its motion to compel arbitration of the declaratory relief action brought by plaintiffs William S. Cobb, Jr., and Elizabeth Richards, who were former members of Ironwood, and Patrick J. Keeley and Helen Riedstra, who were then-current members. The motion to compel was based on an arbitration provision Ironwood incorporated into its bylaws four months after plaintiffs' complaint was filed. In 1999, the Club entered into an agreement with each of its 588 members, whereby each member loaned the club $25,500 to fund the Club's purchase of additional land. The members were given the option of paying the funds in a lump sum or by making payments over a period of 20 years into a "Land Purchase Account." In connection with the loans, the Club represented that if any member sold his or her membership before the loan was repaid, the Club would be "absolutely obligated to pay the Selling Member the entire amount then standing in the Member's Land Purchase Account." Moreover, any new member would be required to pay, in addition to the regular initiation fee, an amount equal to the hypothetical balance in a Land Purchase Account, as well as the "remaining unamortized portion of the Land Purchase Assessment." In reliance on the Club's representations, the members voted to approve the land purchase and enter into the loan agreements. Three of the plaintiffs paid the lump sum, and one plaintiff elected to make monthly payments into a Land Purchase Account. In April 2012, Ironwood represented that it had repaid the $25,500 Land Purchase Assessment to 10 resigned members whose memberships were subsequently purchased by new members, since 2003. However, plaintiffs alleged that despite the Club's initial description of how the funds would be generated to reimburse resigning members, it "inexplicably failed" to require new members to pay the equivalent of the Land Purchase Assessment when they joined. The trial court held that Ironwood's subsequent amendment of its bylaws was insufficient to demonstrate that any of these plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate this dispute, and that if Ironwood's basic premise were accepted, it would render the agreement illusory. Ironwood argued: (1) that its new arbitration provision was fully applicable to this previously filed lawsuit because the lawsuit concerned a dispute which was "ongoing" between the parties; and (2) that its right to amend its bylaws meant that any such amendment would be binding on both current and former members. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's conclusions, and affirmed the order. View "Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club" on Justia Law

A California resident owned an apartment building in Arkansas that was insured by a Michigan insurance company under a policy the owner obtained through an insurance agent in Arkansas. That policy included commercial property coverage for the Arkansas apartment building and commercial general liability coverage for the owner's property ownership business, which he operated from California. Other than writing this policy, the insurer did no business in California. Both the commercial property coverage and the commercial general liability coverage in the policy covered some risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California, but the dispute at issue here arose out of two fires that damaged the building in Arkansas. Initially, the insurer agreed to treat the two fires as separate losses but later reversed its position and took the position that both incidents were subject to only a single policy limit payment. As a result, the owner sued the insurer in a California state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review was, under these circumstances, did the insurer have sufficient minimum contacts with California to allow the state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the company in this action? The Court concluded the answer was "no." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the insurance company's motion to quash the service of summons. View "Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This debt collection action arose from a credit agreement between U.S. Bank and Charles Migliore. Livingston Financial, LLC, as assignee for U.S. Bank, brought suit against Migliore for breach of the credit agreement. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Livingston. Approximately two years after the district court denied Migliore’s motion to reconsider summary judgment pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b), Migliore filed a renewed Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. The district court denied the renewed motion and granted Livingston’s motion for attorney fees. Migliore appealed the original grant of summary judgment, the denial of the renewed Rule 60(b) motion, and the order granting attorney fees. The court of appeals (1) dismissed the appeal of the original summary judgment order and the order denying the renewed rule 60(b) motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction; and (2) affirmed Livingston’s award of fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of apepals (1) erred when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Migliore’s renewed Rule 60(b) motion, but the renewed motion was improper and without merit; and (2) correctly affirmed the award of attorney fees. View "Migliore v. Livingston Fin. LLC" on Justia Law

The Milky Whey, Inc., a dairy broker based in Montana, bought products from Dairy Partners, LLC, a dairy supply company located in Minnesota. This appeal concerned Milky Whey’s purchase of a product from Dairy Partners that Dairy Partners shipped to Utah. When Milky Whey picked up the product, it had become moldy and unusable. Milky Whey filed suit, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and breach of an obligation to pay. Dairy Partners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that Dairy Partners did not come within Montana’s long-arm jurisdiction statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Dairy Partners. View "Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

M&G purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in 2000 and entered a collective bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement with the union, providing that certain retirees, surviving spouses, and dependents, would “receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits”; that such benefits would be provided “for the duration of [the] Agreement”; and that the Agreement would be subject to renegotiation in three years. After the expiration, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Retirees sued, alleging that the 2000 Agreement created a vested right to lifetime contribution-free health care benefits. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of the retirees; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, noting that welfare benefits plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1051(1), 1053, 1081(a)(2), 1083, and applying ordinary principles of contract law. The Court stated that Sixth Circuit precedent distorts ordinary principles of contract law, which attempt to ascertain the intention of the parties, “by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements.” The Sixth Circuit did not consider the rules that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises and that “contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.” View "M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett" on Justia Law