Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Andersons appealed the grant of summary judgment by the district court in favor of Hess Corporation (Hess), the successor in interest to and lessee of mineral rights on the Andersons' land. The Andersons contended that the district court erred in construing the five leases at issue as requiring Hess to engage in "drilling operations" rather than actual "drilling" in order to extend the primary terms of the leases and granting Hess's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to certify the Andersons' question regarding the meaning of the phrase "engaged in drilling or reworking operations." The court also held that this disputed lease language was not ambiguous and meant "engaged in drilling operations or reworking operations." Therefore, the district court correctly interpreted the disputed lease language and properly granted summary judgment in favor of Hess on the Andersons' quiet title claim.

This case arose out of a sale-leaseback transaction that occurred in 2001. On July 10, 2011, the seller-lessees' parent company announced plans for a proposed transaction whereby it would seek a new credit facility and undergo an internal reorganization. As part of a subsequent reorganization, substantially all of its profitable power generating facilities would be transferred from existing subsidiaries to new "bankruptcy remote" subsidiaries, except for two financially weakened power plants. On July, 22, 2011, plaintiffs brought this action seeking to temporarily restrain the closing of the proposed transaction on the grounds that it violated the successor obligor provisions of the guaranties and would constitute a fraudulent transfer. The court found it more appropriate to analyze plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order under the heightened standard for a preliminary injunction. Having considered the record, the court held that plaintiffs have failed to show either a probability of success on the merits of their breach of contract and fraudulent transfer claims or the existence of imminent irreparable harm if the transaction was not enjoined. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief.

Defendant moved to dismiss this action under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3). Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of, and specific performance of, a putative settlement agreement, which, if enforced, would end its arbitration of a dispute with defendant that arose out of a commercial contract, the Professional Services and Procurement Agreement (PSPA). The court held that, to the extent that defendant argued that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, defendant's motion was denied. The court also held that the action was dismissed without prejudice pending resolution of the arbitration process.

Joseph Graziano, an owner of property in the Stock Farm subdivision and a member of the Stock Farm Homeowners Association, filed a complaint against the Association and Stock Farm LLC (SFLLC), asserting several claims, including negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, defamation, and constructive fraud. The Association and SFLLC moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to a provision of Stock Farm's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs). The district court granted the motion, finding the CCRs were an enforceable agreement to arbitrate all the claims in Graziano's complaint. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding the CCRs were not a contract of adhesion and were within Graziano's reasonable expectations, and thus were enforceable; (2) the district court erred in finding Graziano's claim of breach of fiduciary duty was not a personal injury claim exempt from arbitration under Mont. Code Ann. 27-5-114(2)(a); and (3) all of Graziano's remaining claims were subject to the valid and enforceable arbitration provision and must be arbitrated pursuant to the CCRs. Remanded.

Judith Berry brought negligence and consumer protection claims against defendants National Medical Services and Compass Vision after her urinalysis tests conducted as part of Berry's participation in the Kansas Nurses Assistance Program (KNAP) showed positive results, which meant Berry tested positive for substance abuse in violation of Berry's KNAP agreement. Berry claimed Defendants were negligent in designing, implementing, promoting, and managing their testing protocol and that Defendants knew that because she was a participant in KNAP, her nursing license would be in jeopardy if she tested positive. The district court dismissed Berry's petition with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court of appeals reversed on the negligence claim, finding that Berry was a foreseeable plaintiff, that the probability of harm was foreseeable, and that there was no public policy against imposing a duty on Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Berry was a foreseeable plaintiff and the probability of harm was foreseeable; and (2) there was no public policy to extend protection to Defendants simply because they contracted with a government agency. Remanded.

Defendant New Community Corporation appealed judgments in favor of Plaintiff Pomerantz Paper Corporation stemming from a breach of contract claim. Pomerantz appealed a judgment in favor of New Community on a counterclaim that held that Pomerantz engaged in unconscionable business practices as defined by the state Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) stemming from the same contract. According to New Community, items regularly were missing from shipments. In 2000, New Community began to question the invoices and prices Pomerantz charged. By 2004, Pomerantz claimed that New Community had failed to pay invoices totaling approximately $700,000, and it filed a claim for breach of contract. New Community filed a counterclaim asserting that Pomerantz engaged in unconscionable business practices in violation of the CFA. Upon review of the contract, the parties' business dealings and the trial court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial courtâs findings that were central to its evaluation of the New Community's Consumer Fraud Act counterclaim failed for want of sufficient credible evidence in the record, and that the appellate panel erred in deferring to those findings and, by extension, in affirming the trial courtâs conclusions. Furthermore, the appellate panel erred in its analysis of the sellerâs breach of contract claim by imposing a duty of written notice of non-delivery on the buyer that is found neither in the Uniform Commercial Code nor in the course of dealing between the parties. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Branson Machinery, LLC appealed a circuit court's decision that set aside a default judgment granted in its favor against Hilltop Tractor, LLC and Jeffrey Williams. According to Branson, Hilltop owed it money for equipment it had purchased. Because it had not received payment, Branson filed a breach-of-contract action against Hilltop and Mr. Williams. The Blount Circuit Court entered a default judgment in favor of Branson. Following the entry of the default judgment, Branson's counsel engaged Hilltop and Mr. Williams (acting without counsel) in settlement negotiations. The parties negotiated a "workout" agreement, and at some point, Hilltop became unable to meet the payment terms. Branson filed garnishment paperwork with the trial court seeking to enforce the original default judgment. Hilltop and Mr. Williams hired counsel and successfully moved the court to set aside the default judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting Hilltop and Mr. Williams' motion to set aside the default judgment. The Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case to reinstate the original default judgment.

The Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery (IDB) appealed a circuit court's interlocutory order that denied its motion for summary judgment as to a breach-of-contract claim asserted against it by George and Thomas Russell as co-executors and co-trustees of the wills and testamentary trusts of Earnest and Myrtis Russell, Price and Mary McLemore and several others. In 2001, various officials of the State of Alabama, the City of Montgomery, the Montgomery County Commission, Montgomery Chamber of Commerce and the local water works board began making preparations to secure options to purchase property in the Montgomery area in an attempt to persuade Hyundai Motor Company to build an automobile plant in the area. All the trusts owned acres of land in the targeted area. The IDB signed separate options with the Russells, the McLemores and other trusts to purchase the respective properties. Hyundai's plans for its manufacturing plant changed, and subsequently, not all of the options were exercised. The Russells and the McLemores each filed breach-of-contract actions against the IDB and Hyundai alleging that neither adhered to the terms of their respective options. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the IDB's motion for summary judgment. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Two appeals between MPQ, Inc. (d/b/a Freedom Enterprises) and Birmingham Realty Company were consolidated by the Supreme Court for the purposes of this opinion. The parties entered into a commercial lease agreement. Birmingham Realty filed suit against MPQ for unpaid rent in circuit court. MPQ filed a counterclaim. Birmingham Realty filed a separate unlawful-detainer action against MPQ in district court. The district court dismissed the detainer action, reasoning that the simultaneous actions in the district and circuit courts violated Alabama's abatement statute. Birmingham Realty appealed the district court's dismissal to the circuit court and filed a motion to dismiss MPQ's counterclaim. The circuit court conducted a hearing on all pending motions. It then entered an order affirming the district court's dismissal of the unlawful-detainer action and dismissed MPQ's counterclaims in the rent action. The court suggested that Birmingham Realty move to dismiss the rent action without prejudice so it could refile its unlawful-detainer action in the district court and then later refile an action in circuit court to seek the unpaid rent. Birmingham Realty took the court's advice and filed the suggested motions. MPQ filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the court's decision in its counterclaim. The circuit court did not rule on either motion. The parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Birmingham Realty's appeal from the district court to the circuit court was not timely, and as such, the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal with regard to the unlawful-detainer action and remanded the remaining issues for further proceedings.

RCH IV-WB, LLC (RCH) appealed a circuit court's order that set aside its mortgage foreclosure sale. At a bench trial, RCH offered as evidence a copy of a document allegedly assigning the mortgage at issue from Wachovia Bank to RCH. Defendant Wolf Bay Partners, LLC objected to the admission of the assignment documents, arguing that RCH failed to show that the individual who signed the assignment had authority to act, and that the form of the assignment failed to conform to Alabama law. The trial court sustained the objection and eventually set aside the foreclosure sale of the subject property. RCH unsuccessfully filed a motion for new trial and appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the trial court record, the evidence submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that the mortgage assignment was not admissible. The Court reversed the lower court's judgement and remanded the case for further proceedings.