Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff US Bank National Association appealed a trial court order that granted summary judgment to Defendant Homeowner Christine Kimball and dismissed with prejudice US Bankâs foreclosure complaint for lack of standing.  On appeal, US Bank argued that it had standing to prosecute the foreclosure claim and that the courtâs dismissal with prejudice was in error.  Homeowner cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred in not addressing her claim for attorneyâs fees. Homeowner purchased the property in question in June 2005.  To finance the purchase, she executed an adjustable rate promissory note in favor of Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (Accredited).  The note was secured by a mortgage deed to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Accredited. In 2009, US Bank filed a foreclosure complaint for Homeownerâs failure to make required payments.  The complaint alleged that the mortgage and note were assigned to US Bank by MERS, as nominee for Accredited.  Attached to the complaint was a copy of the instrument signed by a "Duly Authorized Agent" of MERS.  The promissory note was also attached to the complaint and appended to it was an undated allonge signed by a corporate officer of Accredited, endorsing the note in blank. Homeowner moved for summary judgment claiming, among other things, that US Bank failed to present sufficient evidence that it held homeownerâs note and corresponding mortgage. Because neither note submitted by US Bank was dated, the court concluded that there was no evidence that the note was endorsed to US Bank before the complaint was filed.  Therefore, the court held that US Bank lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action.  Following a hearing, the court denied the motions for reconsideration and to amend the complaint.  The court concluded that US Bank had submitted a defective complaint and the deficiencies were not mere technicalities, but essential items, without which the case could not proceed.  The court held that US Bank lacked standing when the complaint was filed, and dismissed the complaint âwith prejudice.â  Upon review of the trial record and briefs submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects but for the 'with prejudice': "this may be but an ephemeral victory for homeowner.  Absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal cannot cancel her obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate her from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency." The Court dismissed the foreclosure complaint and remanded the case for consideration of the parties' fees dispute.

This case concerned the application of payments made in connection with a real estate transaction between Kang Park and Marsha Park and Gary Stanford. The district court granted summary judgment to the Parks, determining, as a matter of law, that none of the payments Stanford submitted to the Parks could be credited toward a personal guaranty Stanford had made on the note payable to the Parks. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that no evidence indicated the Parks had actual knowledge that Stanford intended for the past payments to apply to his guaranty and no agreement or contractual provision expressly required the Parks to make such an application. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the wrong test in its holding, and rather, a rule in which payments are credited toward a personal guaranty when the recipient of the payments has a reasonable basis to know the payments were submitted in satisfaction of the guaranty governed the application of payments toward a personal guaranty; and (2) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment under the rule and the record required further development. Remanded.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of customers with poor credit who purchased used automobiles from defendants, appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The complaint asserted that defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., and various state laws by burying hidden finance charges in the prices that plaintiffs were charged for these automobiles where defendant advertised the newer, more valuable used cars in its inventory at market prices, but sold the older, less valuable used cars to subprime credit customers for prices substantially higher than the market prices listed in the same guide. The court held that because the complaint did not contain any allegation for which it could plausibly be inferred that defendants failed to disclose a finance charge to plaintiffs, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

This case arose when elderly widow Dorothy Chase Stewart filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and Wells Fargo Bank filed a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court reciting debts owed from an outstanding mortgage on Ms. Stewart's house. The bankruptcy court subsequently found that Wells Fargo's mortgage claims exhibited systematic errors arising from its highly automated, computerized loan-administration program and issued an injunction requiring Wells Fargo to audit every proof of claim it had filed on or filed after April 13, 2007; to provide a complete loan history on every account and file that history with the appropriate court; and "to amend...proofs of claim already on file to comply with the principles established in this case and [In re] Jones." Wells Fargo appealed, challenging the claim amount and the injunction. The court vacated the injunction as exceeding the reach of the bankruptcy court. Because neither the injunction nor the calculation of Ms. Stewart's debt was properly before the court, the court dismissed as moot Wells Fargo's appeal of legal rulings underlying the bankruptcy court's interpretation of the mortgage.

Appellees Floyd Demaray and James Hagemann were sued for repeated tortious activity in discharging of pollutants into lakes and streams of a nearby property. Appellees, who owned separate but identical insurance policies with De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance, notified De Smet of the lawsuit. De Smet declined defense of the suit, asserting it owed no duty to defend under the insurance contract. Appellees obtained their own defense counsel and defended the matter through trial, where a jury ruled in their favor. Appellees then sued De Smet, alleging that the company breached its duty to defend them in the previous lawsuit and seeking indemnification for all costs and fees incurred as a result. The trial court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment, holding that De Smet owed Appellees a duty to defend because the alleged claim, if true, fell within policy coverage. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy language was unambiguous and the complaint asserted no claim that would arguably invoke coverage. Remanded with directions to grant summary judgment for De Smet.

C.R. Weaver ordered a coffee urn from defendant Advanced Restaurant Supply for use by Glacier Kitchens, a corporation in which Weaver owns the majority of the shares. Advanced Restaurant sent a coffee urn it ordered from defendant Wilbur Curtis Manufacturing. Glacier Kitchens used the urn to provide drink for forest firefighters under its food service contract with the United States Forest Service (USFS). The coffee urn ultimately malfunctioned, and, later, Glacier Kitchens' contract with the USFS was terminated by USFS. Weaver sued defendants for breach of contract, alleging that a contract attached when he ordered the coffee urn. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that Weaver, as a shareholder in Glacier Kitchens, lacked standing to bring a claim that belonged to the corporation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants; and (2) the district court properly awarded costs to defendants.

Petitioner Winecellar Farm ("Winecellar") appealed a superior court order that found it was not entitled to: (1) a decree pro confesso awarding it specific performance to purchase the Bedard Farm ("Bedard"); (2) specific performance to purchase the farm under the part performance doctrine; and (3) continued haying in perpetuity under a lease agreement. Craig and Jennifer Rief purchased Winecellar, a working farm adjacent to the Bedard Farm. Bedard was owned by two siblings who until 2006, had lived there all their lives. The Riefs had enjoyed a close, friendly relationship with the Bedards until the Bedards died in 2006. The Riefs informed the Bedards on multiple occasions of their interest in buying the Bedard Farm when the Bedards were ready to sell. Until that time, the Riefs were content with farming the two properties together. In 2004, the Riefs and the Bedards signed a "memorandum of understanding" to harvest hay. In exchange, Winecellar/Riefs would maintain certain access ways and roadways to a shared driveway. In 2004, the Riefs wanted to lease the Bedard land to raise a small herd of buffalo to which the Bedards declined. In January 2006, the Bedards acquiesced to the Riefs' proposal to lease the land for buffalo. They drafted a "letter of understanding" for which the Riefs would lease the land, and later be given the opportunity to purchase the land should the Bedards sell. When the Bedards died, the land passed to their family. The Riefs filed a preliminary injunction in an attempt to preclude the Bedards' estate from evicting its buffalo and removing fencing equipment maintained on two leased pastures. Although the Bedard heirs filed responses in the case, their answer was untimely. The Riefs moved for a decree pro confesso for the right to purchase the Bedard land. The trial court denied the motion, but ordered a voluntary nonsuit as to the Bedard estate. On appeal, the Riefs argued that the sum of the various memoranda/letters of understanding constituted contracts for which specific performance was the only remedy. According to the Riefs, the monthly lease payments were in consideration for the right to purchase the land. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the record adequately supported the trial court's decisions to deny the Riefs specific performance for the Bedard Farm. Additionally, the Court found that the haying arrangement between the parties was not sufficient to constitute an "interest in land" consistent with "the ultimate intent that Winecellar Farm would own the Bedard Farm." As such, the Court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Viasystems, Inc., a Missouri-based corporation, filed suit against EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG (St. Georgen), a German corporation, alleging several claims in contract and tort. At issue was whether the district court properly concluded that it had neither specific nor general personal jurisdiction over St. Georgen and granted its motion to dismiss. The court held that Viasystems failed to establish a prima facie case that specific and general jurisdiction could be asserted over St. Georgen. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Viasystems' motion for jurisdictional discovery. Therefore, because St. Georgen did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" with Missouri, the maintenance of the suit would offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

The Maryland State Retirement System (System) filed a claim against Milliman, an actuary, asserting that Milliman had understated the contributions required to fund three of the State's ten retirement and pension systems because of Milliman's misinterpretation of a particular data code. The Retirement System Procurement Officer determined that Milliman had failed to comply with its contractual duties and awarded damages to the System. On appeal, the State Board of Contract Appeals determined that the actuary had substantially breached its contracts with the System and affirmed the damages. The circuit court affirmed the Board's findings that Milliman breached its contracts with the System and affirmed the award of lost investment earnings but reversed the Board's award of amounts equaling lost contributions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, holding (1) Milliman was liable to the System for repeatedly misinterpreting a data code; (2) the System was not negligent in the development or transmission of data provided to Milliman and, therefore, contributory negligence did not bar the System's recovery; and (3) the circuit court erroneously reduced the Board's damage award representing lost contributions. The Court, therefore, vacated the judgment of the circuit court and affirmed the Board's decision.

Respondent Annapolis Towne Centre (ATC), the owner and developer of a mixed-use development, entered into an agreement with petitioner Hovnanian Land Investment, a residential developer, under which ATC agreed to sell a portion of the property to Hovnanian for the construction of a residential tower. The contract required certain conditions to be met by ATC prior to the closing and contained a clause stating that any waiver of the contract had to be in writing. Before closing, Hovnanian terminated the agreement, alleging that ATC failed to meet a condition precedent. ATC sought a declaratory judgment, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether ATC had complied with the condition precedent. The circuit court granted ATC's motion for summary judgment on that issue, holding that Hovnanian waived the condition precedent. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because (1) a condition precedent may be waived by a party's conduct, despite a non-waiver clause, but whether Hovnanian's actions amounted to a waiver was a dispute of material fact; and (2) the question of whether ATC strictly fulfilled the condition also involved material questions of fact. Remanded.