Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendant moved to dismiss a breach of contract suit. Plaintiff e-filed a response to the motions. There was no objection. The circuit court dismissed; plaintiff e-filed a motion to reconsider. Defendant asserted that e-filing the motion was improper. The trial court denied the motion on the merits without comment on the manner of filing. Plaintiff e-filed its notice of appeal. The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that plaintiff improperly e-filed its motion to reconsider in violation of local rule 5.03 so that the motion was ineffective to toll the time for filing notice of appeal and that plaintiff also violated the rule by e-filing notice of appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The violation of the rule was brought to the court’s attention at the hearing on the motion to reconsider. Defendants did not claim prejudice and the court chose to consider plaintiff’s motion on its merits, which it had discretion to do. Where a deficiency in the notice of appeal is one of form only and not of substance, the appellate court is not deprived of jurisdiction; in this case, the notice of appeal, although improperly filed, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, particularly because a backup paper copy was required to be maintained in a parallel manual court file. Defendants were advised of the nature of the appeal and have not argued that they suffered any prejudice. View "VC&M, Ltd. v. Andrews" on Justia Law

Bruce Nelson subdivided property in the 1970s. Appellant claimed he purchased tract eighteen from Nelson ten days after Nelson filed the plat. Appellant claimed that at the time of the conveyance, Nelson guaranteed that it would not sell adjoining tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee filed a notarized declaration four years later. In 2005, however, Nelson sold tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee purchased tracts sixteen and seventeen in 2008. Appellee filed a quiet title action to clear her title of any cloud that may have arisen as a result of Appellant's declaration. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellee, concluding that Appellant's declaration did not create a restriction on development and that there was no restriction on the property prohibiting the sale of the disputed tracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Appellee. View "Pennington v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant George Lopez conducted mediations in a program created and managed by the Administrative Office of Courts of the State of Utah. In 2006, he was removed from the panel of mediators that mediated certain domestic matters. Plaintiff brought suit in federal district court alleging that his removal from that list of mediators violated his right to due process and his right to equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. He also alleged breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Upon review of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Tenth Circuit found that because Plaintiff's primary argument was based on his alleged contractual rights as a public employee, and because the Court found that there was no implied contract (because evidence in the record revealed Plaintiff was not a public employee), Plaintiff's arguments necessarily failed. View "Lopez v. Admin Office of the Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking interest on benefits she received under an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADD) insurance policy issued by Hartford. The parties disagreed on whether Tennessee law or Missouri law applied. Plaintiff did not dispute Hartford's argument that under Missouri law and the policy language, Hartford paid the benefit to her when it was payable. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to interest under Missouri law. Assuming Tennessee law applied, the court relied on Performance Sys., Inc. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, to conclude that the Tennessee Supreme Court would likely construe "due" in Tenn. Code Ann. 7-14-109(b) to mean the time of payment designated in the policy, not the date of loss. In this instance, Hartford paid the benefit to plaintiff within the time of payment designated in the policy and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to interest under subsection (b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williamson v. Hartford Life & Accident, etc." on Justia Law

Lisbeth Cherrington entered into a contract with the Pinnacle Group for the construction of a home. Anthony Mamone worked with Cherrington during the contract and construction process. After the construction was completed, Cherrington filed this action against Pinnacle and Mamone, alleging, inter alia, negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Pinnacle and Mamone requested Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company, with whom they had insurance policies, to provide coverage and a defense. Because Erie denied both coverage and a duty to defend, Pinnacle and Mamone filed a third-party complaint against Erie seeking a declaration of the coverage provided by their policies. The circuit court granted Erie's motion for summary judgment, finding that the three policies issued to Pinnacle and Mamone did not provide coverage for the injuries and property damage allegedly sustained by Cherrington. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's finding that neither Mamone's homeowners policy nor his umbrella policy provided coverage under the facts of this case; but (2) reversed the circuit court's ruling finding no coverage to exist under Pinnacle's commercial general liability policy. Remanded. View "Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a contingency fee agreement with Appellee, an attorney, which provided that Appellee was entitled to one-third of Appellant's primary award. The underlying action resulted in a judgment in favor of Appellant. Thereafter, the district court awarded a supplemental attorney fees award to Appellant. Appellant paid Appellee one-third of he primary judgment but did not pay Appellee any portion of the supplemental attorney fees award. After Appellant did not give Appellee one-third of the attorney fees award, Appellee filed an attorney's lien against his asserted one-third share. The district court denied Appellee's lien. Appellee subsequently filed an seeking a declaration that he was entitled to one-third of Appellant's attorney fees award. The district court entered judgment in favor of Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the agreement was unambiguous; and (2) under the agreement's terms, Appellee was entitled to one-third of both the primary judgment and the court-awarded attorney fees. View "Redd v. Hill" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the interpretation of a clause concerning the allocation of real estate taxes contained in a written lease between Inland American Retail Management and Cinemaworld of Florida. Inland and Cinemaworld were successors-in-interest to a ground lease for the rental of what is now a movie theater in a shopping center. Under the terms of the lease, Cinemaworld incurred certain liabilities and expenses. Pursuant to a clause in the lease, Cinemaworld was required to pay an amount equal to the real estate taxes "levied, assessed, or otherwise imposed" against the movie theater. Inland filed a complaint for breach of the lease for Cinemaworld's alleged failure to make timely payments as required by the lease. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in Cinemaworld's favor with respect to its motion seeking an accounting, ruling that the formula allocating Cinemaworld's reasonable share of real estate taxes should be based on the square footage of its leased premises. Inland appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation of the parties' lease. View "Inland Am. Retail Mgmt. LLC v. Cinemaworld of Fla., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1995, Elizabeth Meyer, the sole shareholder and CEO of Greensleeves, Inc., orally agreed to buy six dock slips from Philip Smiley. Smiley subsequently entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Eugene Friedrich for the sale of those same dock slips. When Smiley refuse to convey the dock slips to Greensleeves, Greensleeves filed suit against Smiley. Friedrich intervened and moved to dismiss the complaint. The superior court granted judgment in favor of Smiley and Friedrich, finding no enforceable contract between Greensleeves and Smiley. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding that there was an enforceable contract between Greensleeves and Smiley. Friedrich subsequently relinquished his ownership of the dock slips and conveyed them to Greensleeves. Greensleeves then sought an accounting of the rental income that had been collected from the dock slips from the date of the originally-scheduled closing between Greensleeves through the 1999 boating season. Ultimately, the trial court concluded (1) Friedrich had tortiously interfered with the contract between Smiley and Greensleeves, and (2) Greensleeves was entitled to lost rental profits of $61,258 plus interest and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its findings and judgment. View "Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint, which alleged that FXDD engaged in dishonest and deceptive practices in managing its online foreign exchange trading platform in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and New York General Business Law 349(h), and 350. Plaintiff also alleged breach of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that, at this stage, some part of the underlying transaction occurred in New York State, giving plaintiff statutory standing to sue for deceptive practices and false advertising under sections 349 and 350; because the complaint alleged that FXDD failed to act in good faith and intentionally delayed trades or caused them to fail in order to enrich itself at the expense of its customers, these practices were incompatible with a promise to execute orders on a best-efforts basis and, therefore, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract claim; and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court as to the RICO claim and the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC" on Justia Law

This diversity case involved a dispute over insurance coverage between Starr and SGS. The district court, relying on Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., held that Starr did not need to show prejudice before denying coverage to SGS for late notice under the pollution buy-back provision. Bound by Matador, which concluded that a notice requirement in this type of supplemental pollution endorsement was essential to the bargained-for coverage, the court affirmed the judgment and found SGS's arguments unpersuasive. View "Starr Indemnity & Liablity Co. v. SGS Petroleum Serv. Corp." on Justia Law