Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant, The Siebel Living Trust Dated 7/27/93 (Trust), appealed a district court’s order denying the Trust’s motion to recover its attorney fees and costs pursuant to a real estate sales contract with Plaintiff-Appellee Michael J. Ward (Ward). In addressing the question of whether the Trust or Ward was the "prevailing party" (and thereby entitled to recover reasonable fees and costs under the contract), the Tenth Circuit followed Colorado law to review the competing claims of the parties to the contract. Although Ward recovered the commission he sought, he did not recover against the Trust. The Trust was successful defending itself from Ward's claims brought against it and, therefore, as between Ward and the Trust, the Trust prevailed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This appeal concerned the maintenance of a suit for rescission under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., by plaintiffs. The district court granted summary judgments to defendants on all claims and awarded defendants attorneys' fees. The court held that a plaintiff suing under section 10(b) seeking rescission must demonstrate economic loss and that the misrepresentation of fraudulent conduct caused the loss. In this case, the court found that the record revealed the rescission was not feasible. Yet employing a rescissionary measure of damages, plaintiffs could be able to convince the finder of fact that plaintiffs were entitled to relief. On that basis, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal and state securities claims and remanded for consideration under rescissionary measure of damages. With respect to the statute of limitations issue, the court remanded for consideration in light of Merck & Co. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, mutual mistake, failure of a condition precedent, and unjust enrichment. The court vacated the district court's attorneys' fee award and dismissed the appeal of the award as moot.

Gene Shields, an agent for State Farm Insurance Companies, opened an account with Bankcorp Bank. The owner of the account was State Farm. Shields's office manager subsequently diverted funds that were due to be deposited into the account, and Shields allegedly suffered at least $77,925 in losses as a result of over 100 overdrafts on the account. Shields sued Bancorp Bank for negligence in failing to notify him of overdrafts. Bancorp moved to compel arbitration based on the account's arbitration clause. The circuit court denied the motion to compel, and Bancorp appealed. At issue on appeal was whether the parties' 2005 agreement to modify the contract entered into by the parties in 1982 controlled when Shields signed the agreement but State Farm was not a party to the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 2005 agreement, which contained the arbitration provision, was not binding because the agreement was entered into in contravention of the rights of the account owner, State Farm.

When Rita Fix's son and daughter-in-law, Jeff and Marie, secured a loan from the First State Bank of Roscoe by obtaining a warranty deed for the property, the Bank assured Fix she could retain possession of the house. After Jeff and Marie conveyed the house and property to the Bank, the Bank sold the property and sought to remove Fix from the house. Fix sued the Bank for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Meanwhile, Fix, Jeff, and Marie were indicted on multiple criminal counts. The State attorney who brought the charges and who represented the Bank civilly offered to dismiss the criminal charges against Fix if she would deed the house back to the Bank. Fix then amended her complaint to include a claim of abuse of process against the Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment against Fix on her IIED claim. A jury then returned a verdict finding the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages to Fix. The Supreme Court reversed on the abuse of process claim, holding that the trial court provided the jury with the incorrect legal standard for the recovery of emotional damages. Remanded for a new trial.

Delta Environmental filed a contract suit against Jonesboro Healthcare Center, alleging damages for the early termination of a five-year contract for services. The complaint was mistakenly filed in district court and alleged damages in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. The district court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On the same day, Delta filed the identical complaint in circuit court. Jonesboro moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice based on a fatally flawed summons. Jonesboro argued in the motion that this would be the second dismissal in the case following a first dismissal that was a voluntary nonsuit and therefore should be a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The circuit court granted Jonesboro's motion but entered the current dismissal without prejudice, concluding that the previous dismissal in the district court did not trigger the two-dismissal rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was not the type of voluntary dismissal contemplated by rule 41(a), nor the type of involuntary dismissal contemplated by rule 41(b), and therefore, the circuit court did not err in its judgment.

The manufacturer notified franchise dealers that it was discontinuing the Sterling (a subsidiary of Daimler) line of trucks. The letter offered dealers the opportunity to continue as a service dealership under a new agreement. Plaintiff, a dealer, was warned that, following the termination of the existing agreement, if it did not sign the general release and agree to terminate its Sterling franchise, Daimler Trucks would not renew its Detroit Diesel Direct Dealer Agreement. Daimler later terminated that agreement, which plaintiff alleges prevented it from obtaining parts at wholesale and performing warranty work on Detroit Diesel engines. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, 815 ILCS 710/1 and claims of breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and fraud. The circuit court dismissed all but two counts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear several counts under the Act, because those counts should have been brought before the Motor Vehicle Review Board. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Plaintiff sells, installs, and services fire extinguishers and fire suppression and fire alarm systems, which it designs for commercial customers. Defendant Garcia, hired as a systems technician in 1992, became a sales person. In 1997 he signed a noncompetition agreement. Defendant Arredondo, a salesperson, signed a noncompetition agreement about a week after being hired in 1998. The agreement prohibited competition during their employment and for one year after termination in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin and prohibited solicitation of plaintiff's customers, referral sources, and employees. In 2004 defendants formed a competing company; Arredondo resigned, Garcia was fired. The trial court found the covenants unenforceable and a divided appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded. Assessment of a covenant includes analysis of the employer's legitimate business interest, based on the totality of the circumstances.Factors include, but are not limited to, the near-permanence of customer relationships, the employee’s acquisition of confidential information through his employment, and time and place restrictions. No factor carries any more weight than any other,

The Heins rented a house from Julia Benintendi and the Perkerwicz family (hereinafter B&P). B&P alleged the Heins caused considerable damage to the property when they vacated the premises. The Heins countered that B&P unlawfully retained their security deposit and refused to reimburse the Heins for home and lawn improvements. B&P sued and obtained a default judgment. The district court subsequently set aside the default judgment and held a jury trial. B&P were awarded damages but not attorney fees or costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to both parties; (2) the district court incorrectly required each party to bear its own costs because, as the prevailing party, B&P was entitled to its costs under Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment because it had good cause to do so.

This case arose out of the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge. Individual plaintiffs commenced lawsuits against two contractors that performed work on the bridge pursuant to contracts entered into with the State. The contractors brought third-party complaints against Jacobs Engineering Group on the basis that Jacobs' predecessor negligently designed the bridge. One contractor also filed a third-party complaint against the State. The State cross-claimed against Jacobs for contribution, indemnity, and statutory reimbursement. Jacobs moved to dismiss the State's cross-claim as time-barred, arguing that the reimbursement provision of the compensation statutes compensating survivor-claimants of the collapse did not retroactively revive causes of action against Jacobs that had been previously extinguished by a prior version of the statute of repose. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the provision retroactively revived the State's action for statutory reimbursement against Jacobs; (2) the provision did not violate Jacob's constitutional right to due process; and (3) revival of the action for statutory reimbursement did not unconstitutionally impair Jacobs' contractual obligations.

This case arose out of the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge. Individual plaintiffs commenced lawsuits against a contractor that performed work on the bridge pursuant to a contract entered into with the State. The contractor brought a third-party complaint against Jacobs Engineering Group for indemnity and contribution on the basis that Jacobs' predecessor negligently designed the bridge. Jacobs moved to dismiss the lawsuits as time-barred and argued that the 2007 amendments to Minn. Stat. 541.051 did not revive actions for contribution or indemnity that had previously been extinguished by a prior version of the statute of repose. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the 2007 amendments to section 541.051 did not retroactively revive the contractor's action for contribution against Jacobs.