Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred in allowing Plaintiff to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-380(B) based on its determination that Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not a nonsuit under section 8.01-380. In Virginia, a plaintiff may take only one nonsuit as a matter of right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiff was permitted to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to section 8.01-380(B), holding (1) Va. Code Ann. 8.01-229(E)(3) does not confirm or suggest that a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a nonsuit for purposes of section 8.01-380; and (2) Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not substantially equivalent to Virginia's nonsuit in this regard. View "Inova Health Care Servs. v. Kebaish" on Justia Law

In this case the circuit court determined that Plaintiff, the prevailing party on both its claim for compensation under the contract and Defendant's counterclaim for Plaintiff's alleged breach of the contract, was entitled to only a nominal award of one dollar in attorneys' fees for its defense of the counterclaim because Defendant had a "good faith" basis for alleging the breach. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment awarding one dollar in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff for its successful defense of Defendant's counterclaim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine a proper award of attorneys' fees. Additionally, upon remand, the Court concluded Plaintiff may submit to the circuit court a claim for additional attorneys' fees, and the court shall award such fees and expenses it determines to be reasonable and necessary for the successful prosecution of this appeal and defense of Defendant's assignment of cross-error thereto. View "Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2005, Allen Grazer obtained a judgment against Gordon Jones and Richard Barney for breach of contract. To satisfy the judgment, property held by Jones and Barney was sold at a sheriff's sale and purchased by Grazer's attorney on his client's behalf. Jones and Barney assigned their redemption interests to the Olsen Trust, which attempted to redeem the property under Utah R. Civ. P. 69C(c). Grazer challenged that attempt as invalid because it was not in full compliance with Rule 69C(c). The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Olsen Trust, concluding the Trust had substantially complied with the rule. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed on somewhat different grounds, holding (1) Rule 69C(c) cannot reasonably be read to require superfluous service of documents on the party who was ultimately their source; and (2) the Olsen Trust's redemption was valid and enforceable despite alleged deficiencies under Rule 69C(c) because the Trust fulfilled all non-superfluous requirements of the rule. View "Grazer v. Jones" on Justia Law

In two separate actions, seven Massachusetts hospitals and one managed health care organization that disproportionately provided medical care to the poor alleged that the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services violated her obligation to reimburse them for the reasonable costs incurred in providing medical services to MassHealth enrollees. A superior court judge granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings in one case and the Secretary's motion to dismiss in the other, concluding as a matter of law that the plaintiffs could not prevail even if their allegations were true. The plaintiffs appealed, and the cases were consolidated. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions denying the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the plaintiffs' redress for their claims rested in the political arena, not in the courts. View "Boston Med. Ctr. v. Sec'y of the Executive Office of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

This was an appeal of a judgment which held that a mechanic’s lien had priority over a mortgage. The judgment was predicated upon the district court's refusal to permit the mortgagee to withdraw an admission made in open court by its counsel that the mechanic's lien was valid. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the district court and held that the mechanic's lien was invalid because the lien did not show that it was verified before a person entitled to administer oaths. View "First Federal Savings Bank of Twin Falls v. Riedesel Engineering, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Foti Fuels, Inc. (Foti), a fuel distributor, appealed a Civil Division’s judgment in favor of Evans Group, Inc. (Evans), also a fuel distributor. Evans cancelled its agreement to sell fuel to Foti for resale and delivery to a retail gasoline station, and sued for payment of an outstanding balance of $68,864. Foti claimed the unilateral termination of the agreement violated the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) which regulates fuel franchise agreements. The trial court determined that Foti was not a "franchisee" within the meaning of the PMPA and, therefore, not entitled to its contract termination protections. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Evans Group, Inc. v. Foti" on Justia Law

When AFC filed for bankruptcy in 2009, the FDIC was appointed receiver for AFC’s subsidiary, AmTrust and sought payment from AFC under 11 U.S.C. 365(o), which requires that a party seeking Chapter-11 bankruptcy fulfill “any commitment . . . to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.” The FDIC argued that AFC made such a commitment by agreeing to entry of a cease-and-desist order requiring AFC’s board to “ensure that [the Bank] complies” with the Bank’s own obligation to “have and maintain” capital ratios of 7 percent (Tier 1) and 12 percent (total). The district court found that the order was not a capital-maintenance commitment under section 365(o). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The cease-and-desist order is ambiguous and could reasonably be read as establishing either an oversight role or a capital-maintenance commitment and the bulk of the extrinsic evidence favored the “oversight” reading. View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Amtrust Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

GTI went bankrupt after it purchased OAI, a subsidiary of Onkyo for $13 million in cash and $12 million in three-year promissory notes. Onkyo filed a proof of claim for $12 million. GTI responded by suing Onkyo under the theory that the OAI purchase was a fraudulent, voidable transaction. The bankruptcy court agreed, finding that OAI was worth $6.9 million at the time of the transaction, not $25 million. The court voided GTI’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price and ordered Onkyo to repay GTI $6.1 million. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed. The bankruptcy court’s determination that the indirect benefits were insubstantial was valid without the necessity of providing calculations; its adoption of GTI’s expert’s value based on the comparable transactions method was not clearly erroneous. Once the bankruptcy court determined that the sale of OAI had been a fraudulent transfer and Onkyo was a good-faith transferee, awarding GTI relief was a simple matter of subtraction. View "Onkyo Europe Elec., GMBH v. Global Technovations Inc." on Justia Law

Chesapeake Exploration entered into an agreement to purchase deep rights held by Peak Energy in certain oil and gas leases in the Haynesville Shale formation at a certain price. Peak Energy filed a complaint against Chesapeake Exploration after Chesapeake Exploration refused to honor its commitment when the price of natural gas plummeted several months after the agreement. Chesapeake Exploration argued that the agreement was unenforceable under the Texas statute of frauds, fatally indefinite, and that Peak Energy had failed to tender performance. The court held that the district court did not err in its instructions to its expert, or in holding that the agreement was enforceable under the statute of frauds; in finding that Peak Energy was willing and able to tender performance of the agreement; and in calculating damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Coe, et al v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing claims she brought in November 2009 against the Cadle Company and its corporate sibling CadleRock Joint Venture II for unlawful debt collection under Massachusetts law. In November 2005 Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Defendants and furnished a release. Because the release was valid, at issue was whether, given the release of past claims, anything that occurred in or after November 2005 restored or gave rise to a claim by Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that because Plaintiff was essentially attacking Defendants' pre-release conduct in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff's claims, which ultimately depended on the wrongfulness of the original debt collection efforts, were without merit. View "Pilalas v. The Cadle Co." on Justia Law