Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Olsen's Mill, a grain elevator, and BNP Paribas, the elevator's largest creditor, entered into a voluntary assignment agreement for the benefit of creditors under Wis. Stat. 128 after Olsen's Mill defaulted on its obligations to Paribas. The circuit court approved of the assignment and ordered the sale of certain assets free and clear of Paribas's security interest without its consent. The court of appeals affirmed the order. On review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding (1) the circuit court erred by ordering the sale of Paribas's collateral free and clear of Paribas's security interest without its consent; and (2) the court contravened the statute by approving an offer that circumvented the order of distribution mandated by Ws. Stat. 128.17(1). Remanded for a determination of what remedy was available under the circumstances.

After Beneficial Maine filed a complaint for foreclosure against Timothy and Kathleen Carter in district court, Beneficial moved for summary judgment. To support its motion, Beneficial relied on an affidvait of an employee of a separate business identified as Beneficial's servicer. Beneficial cited to the affidavit as the sole evidentiary support for its allegations of its ownership of the promissory note and mortgage, the Carters' obligation on the note, the Carters' default, and the amount that the Carters owed. The district court entered summary judgment in the bank's favor on its foreclosure complaint. The Carters appealed, challenging the foundation presented by Beneficial to support the admissibility of its mortgage records pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment entered in favor of Beneficial, concluding that because the employee did not establish that she was a custodian or other qualified witness who could provide trustworthy and reliable information about the records, the affidavit could not establish the foundation for the records' admissibility. Therefore, the district court could not properly consider those records on summary judgment. Remanded.

When Dennis Lindskov purchased Les Lindskov's interest in an automotive company, Dennis and Les signed a dissolution agreement that contained a non-disparagement clause. Les opened a competing business within months of the sale of his interest in the company. Dennis initiated a breach of contract and fraud and deceit action, alleging that the non-disparagement clause contained a covenant not to compete. The trial court granted Les's motions for summary judgment on both causes of action and dismissed Dennis's complaint. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court properly granted Les's motions for summary judgment where (1) because the clause did not create a covenant not to compete, Les did not breach the dissolution agreement by opening a competing business, and (2) because Les did not have a fiduciary duty to disclose his intent to compete, he did not commit fraud or deceit as a matter of law.

Plaintiff's suit concerning purchase of an aircraft claimed specific performance; and, in the alternative, breach of contract; breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing; and breach of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. 501.2105. The district court rejected the claims; proceeded under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, as requested by plaintiff; ruled in favor of defendant, but refused to award attorney fees under FDUPTA. After concluding that FDUTPA and its fee award provision are applicable as substantive law of the forum state, the Eleventh Circuit certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court: Whether an offer of judgment may be viable when it purports to settle "all claims," even though it does not explicitly state whether the proposal includes attorneys' fees and whether fees are part of the legal claim; Whether the fee provision applies to a lawsuit seeking damages or, in the alternative, specific performance; Whether the fee-shifting provision applies to an action with the case's unique procedural history; and Whether the provision applies only to fees incurred during the seven months before the FDUTPA claim was defeated at summary judgment, or also to fees incurred during subsequent litigation.

Plaintiff Harodite Industries filed a complaint against defendant Warren Electric for negligence and other causes of action, seeking damages for the failure of a gasket in the oil pre-heater that Harodite purchased from defendant. After conducting discovery, Harodite filed a motion to amend its complaint. The hearing justice denied Harodite's motion. Plaintiff then filed a motion for a stay pending a ruling on the petition for writ of certiorari it intended to file with the Supreme Court. Defendant objected to the motion, arguing that the court should apply a Massachusetts statute of limitations to plaintiff's proposed amended complaint. The hearing justice held that Rhode Island's ten-year statute of limitations should apply and granted Harodite's motion for a stay. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the superior court, holding (1) the hearing justice did not abuse her discretion in denying Harodite's motion to amend its complaint; and (2) the hearing justice correctly determined that Rhode Island's statute of limitations would be the relevant statute of limitations with respect to the allegations set forth in Harodite's proposed amended complaint, and therefore, those allegations would not be barred by the statute of limitations.

Mortgage company Fifth Third filed a foreclosure action against a debtor. Judge Nancy Russo of the county court issued an order stating if the parties reached an agreement to notify the court. Subsequently, the parties negotiated a loan-modification agreement, and Fifth Third filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its complaint without prejudice. Judge Russo issued an entry (1) striking Fifth Third's notice of dismissal, and (2) ordering a show-cause contempt hearing due to Fifth Third's filing a notice of dismissal when the case was settled via loan modification. Fifth Third filed complaints against Judge Russo in the court of appeals for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The court granted a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Russo to vacate her order striking Fifth Third's notice of voluntary dismissal and a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Russo from proceeding on the foreclosure case but denied a writ of prohibition to prevent the judge from proceeding on the contempt order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court of appeals ruled properly in the underlying writ case because (1) Fifth Third properly dismissed its case without prejudice, and (2) Fifth Third had an adequate remedy at law following the contempt order.

Defendant, an American citizen, approached plaintiff, a supplier of dairy products, about doing business with a Chinese company, affiliated with a company operated by defendant's cousin. The American did not claim to be an agent of the Chinese company, but did respond to a request for credit information and paid for the first transaction with her own check. The Chinese buyer claims that the American company wrongfully substituted an inferior product in the second transaction and did not pay. Instead of bringing a claim against the Chinese company, the plaintiff claimed fraud by the American. The district court held that the suit was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any false statements by defendant were "interwoven" with the contract; plaintiff could have protected itself contractually against the risk of nonpayment. Holding the American liable in tort would not plug any loophole in contract law. The contract was not concerned with services, for which there is an exception.

In April 2008, plaintiff American Asphalt sued CMX for professional negligence and breach of implied warranty. On October 1, 2008, the superior court issued an order informing plaintiff that if it did not file a motion to set as required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38.1(e), the case would be placed on the inactive calendar after January 20, 2009 and dismissed without further notice after March 23, 2009. American did not file a motion to set and the case was dismissed without further notice on April 29, 2009. Plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal, contending that its failure to comply with Rule 38.1(a) was excusable because it had substituted counsel around the time of the Rule 38.1(d) filing deadline. The superior court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no excusable neglect partly because the court's order provided notice as required by the rule. On review, the Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and remanded, holding that a notice issued several months prior to placing the case on the inactive calendar does not comply with the rule because the rule requires contemporaneous notice when a case is placed on the inactive calendar.

Richard Orr and Sheldon Cook had a partnership agreement to conduct a cow-calf operation. The parties sold the cows and calves in the spring of 2007. Cook received $230,935 from the sale. Orr sued Cook, disputing the reimbursement amount Cook owed him from the sale and for the cost of feeding and caring for the cows during the winter of 2007. The trial court awarded Orr $41,614. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court was not clearly erroneous in determining the value of the calves; (2) the trial court was not clearly erroneous in determining the amount of reimbursement Cook owed Orr for feed and veterinarian costs; and (3) the trial court did err in refusing to award Orr prejudgment interest because it was requested in a manner allowed by statute.

Plaintiff contracted to purchase 11 Burger King restaurants. A jury found that defendant had properly terminated the agreement but had breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and awarded $190,907.27. Over one year later, the district court entered a partial judgment denying specific performance and awarding $5,176.24 of the $424,282.19 in attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the litigation. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The plaintiffs presented evidence that defendant hindered attempts to close the transaction, but defendant's actions in blocking due diligence and failing to provide financial information did not cause plaintiff damages because defendant properly terminated the agreement. The district court erred in calculating fees and expenses.