Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of defendants on defendants' statute of frauds defense to plaintiffs' lawsuit demanding specific performance on three Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSAs) entered between the parties for the sale/purchase of certain oil and gas leases. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that the lack of finality prevented consideration of the exhibits attached to the PSAs as a part of the contract to convey the property. The exhibits were specifically incorporated into the contract, the exhibits contained a sufficient legal description to meet the statute of frauds, and thus, the PSAs were enforceable by specific performance.

Carl Murphy was injured while shopping at Home Depot. Murphy subsequently sued Home Depot. Counsel for both parties then began negotiating a settlement offer, but no settlement documents were executed. Home Depot moved to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that Murphy's counsel agreed to a "global settlement" via his correspondence with Home Depot's counsel. The district court granted Home Depot's motion, determining that the parties formed a binding settlement agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no mutual consent between Murphy and Home Depot because there was no agreement on the essential terms of the settlement agreement, and therefore, no settlement agreement was ever reached between the parties. Remanded.

The City of Dillon entered an agreement with the McNeills allowing them to connect to a water main for their domestic water supply. Later, the City granted permission to the McNeills to activate an existing water service to their property. The Conners bought the McNeills' subdivided lot, and the City billed and collected for the water that was furnished to the Conners. The water main subsequently froze solid, leaving the Conners without water service for weeks. The Conners sued the City for breach of contract and negligence. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding (1) there was no implied contract between the Conners and the City, and therefore, the Conners' water use was unlawful; and (2) the negligence claim was barred by City Ordinance 13.04.150, which provides that the City is not liable for claims from interruption of water service resulting from shutting off the water in its mains. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City had a legal obligation to provide water to the Conners under an implied contract; and (2) section 13.04.150 did not bar the Conners' claims because the City did not decide to shut off the water service.

This case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute in the wake of the WaMu failure in September 2008. GE alleged that Chase failed to pay rent on two properties under lease agreements that Chase assumed after it purchased WaMu's assets and liabilities from the FDIC pursuant to terms of a written Purchase & Assumption Agreement (P&A Agreement). GE filed suit against Chase alleging breach of the lease agreements and the district court granted Chase's motion to dismiss GE's complaint on the grounds that GE lacked standing to enforce or interpret the terms of the P&A Agreement. The court held that because GE was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the P&A Agreement, GE had no enforceable rights under that contract. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Todd Olson filed suit against Robert Farrar, alleging he was liable for property damage to Olson's trailer home and vehicle. Farrar's insurer, Mt. Morris Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaration that it had neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify Farrar under the terms of its insurance policy. The circuit court granted a declaratory and summary judgment in favor of Mt. Morris. The court of appeals reversed. Mt. Morris appealed, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify because of certain coverage exclusions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy provisions at issue were ambiguous; therefore, the Court construed them in favor of coverage. Remanded.

Appellants and Bank entered a loan agreement in which Bank agreed to lend Appellants $5 million. After Bank refused to disburse further funds under the loan, Appellants sued Bank. Bank was represented by the Crowley Fleck law firm (Crowley). During the ensuing litigation, an attorney that was working with the law firm representing Appellants (Lawyer) joined Crowley as an attorney. Appellants subsequently filed motions to disqualify Crowley from representing Bank in the case and to permanently enjoin Crowley from proceeding in the litigation. The trial court denied Appellants' motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Appellants' motions where (1) Lawyer, who was engaged in concrete discussions of future employment with the adversary's law firm, did not promptly inform Appellant, terminate all further discussions concerning the employment, or withdraw from representing Appellant; (2) the conflict was concurrent and thus imputed to Crowley; and (3) the measures Crowley took were inadequate to preserve Appellants' confidences.

The City of Dillon filed a civil action against George Warner seeking to recover the costs of installation of a water meter. Judge Gregory Mohr ruled on several motions filed by the city and conducted a scheduling conference. Warner subsequently filed an affidavit of disqualification against Mohr. The judge that presided over the disqualification proceeding (1) found Warner's affidavit of disqualification was insufficient as a matter of law and was therefore void; and (2) ordered that Mohr would maintain jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Warner's appeal, finding that the city court order concerning Warner's attempt to disqualify Mohr was an interim order and was therefore not appealable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Warner's appeal, as it was from an interim order and not a final judgment; and (2) the district court's orders dismissing the appeal were interim orders and thus not appealable to the Court.

Max and Glenna Overbey recovered judgments against Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC (National) and Chad Franklin (Franklin) for fraudulent representations in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act made in connection with National's sale of a vehicle to the Overbeys. Franklin appealed, and the Overbeys appealed the trial court's reduction of the punitive damage verdict as required by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the award against Franklin was fully supported by the evidence; and (2) the limit of punitive damages did not violate the Overbeys' constitutional rights or the separation of powers doctrine.

This case stemmed from the judicial sale of a condominium owned by Petitioner and conducted by two court-appointed trustees that were employed by a law firm (collectively, Respondents). Following the sale, Petitioner filed a complaint, alleging breach of fiduciary duty involving actual fraud and breach of fiduciary duty involving constructive fraud by the trustees and alleging vicarious liability by the law firm. The trial judge granted Respondents' motion to dismiss, concluding that Respondents were entitled to qualified judicial immunity for their actions in connection with the sale. The court of special appeals (1) reversed with regard to Petitioner's allegations of actual fraud, and (2) affirmed with regard to the other causes of action on grounds of qualified judicial immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Respondents were not entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the concept of qualified public official immunity was inapplicable to the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff divorced his wife (Wife) after discovering she had had an extramarital affair with Defendant and had conceived a child (Child) with him. After Plaintiff and Wife divorced, Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant, seeking damages on claims of nondisclosure, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff sought reimbursement from Defendant for the costs he had expended in raising Child from her birth until his divorce from Wife, when Child was almost fifteen years old. The trial court concluded that although Defendant was Child's biological father, the doctrine of equitable estoppel and public policy concerns precluded Plaintiff from pursuing his claims for reimbursement and denying his paternity. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the court improperly found that Plaintiff was equitably estopped from pursuing his claims because there was insufficient evidence of financial harm to Child, which is required to establish the element of detrimental reliance in a case involving a denial of paternity.