Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Robl and Homoly formed the Company to develop real estate. Robl held a 60% share and Homoly held 40%. Steve Robl was the tax matters partner; his wife, accountant Vera Robl, assisted with financial records; Homoly was a project manager. From 2006-2011, the Company operated at a loss. Robl periodically advanced money. The operating agreement required the consent of both members before “creation of any obligation or commitment of the Company, including the borrowing of funds, in excess of $10,000; [and] . . . . Any act which would cause a Member, absent such Member’s written consent, to become personally liable for any debt or obligation of the Company.” Vera notified Homoly that the Company needed “to make a capital call or increase loans on existing inventory,” that Robl had “put in $71,500 so if you go the route of capital call, your share to get caught up would be $47,666.” Homoly responded, “I would prefer the money from Robl to be considered a loan ... If Steve would rather me put in a capital call, however, I will … write the check.” In 2011, Robl sued for breach of contract, seeking $172,617.61. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that Homoly did not personally guarantee any loan. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The record showed that the parties genuinely dispute whether Homoly authorized Robl’s loan and personally guaranteed repayment. View "Robl Constr., Inc. v. Homoly" on Justia Law

In 2004, Streambend signed agreements to purchase two units in a Minneapolis residential condominium development, Ivy Hotel + Residences. Completion of the units was delayed, two additional floors were added without proper disclosure, and earnest moneys were removed from the trust account to pay construction costs without Streambend’s permission. Mechanics liens were filed in 2008 and not removed. Streambend requested return of its earnest moneys in 2009, but, defendants claimed the deposits were non-refundable. Streambend sued, alleging state law contract, fraud, and statutory claims and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1703(a)(2). The initial defendants were the developers, their real estate agent, and the title company, as escrow and disbursing agent. The district court dismissed ILSA claims against the developers for failure to plead fraud with the required specificity; granted summary judgment dismissing the ILSA claims against the title company on the merits; and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding refusals to permit Streambed to re-add a party whose prior dismissal on the merits was not challenged in an earlier appeal and to permit further amendment of the complaint. View "Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC" on Justia Law

Menard operated a store in a building subleased from Wal-Mart. In 2006, Menard entered into a Purchase Agreement (PA) with Dial; Clauff signed as a managing member of Dial. Menard planned to build a store and wanted to be relieved of its obligations under the sublease. Menard and Dial agreed that Dial would assume responsibility for the sublease after Menard opened its new store. With Wal-Mart’s consent, DKC (Chauff's other LLC) and Menard executed an Assignment. Clauff purported to sign as a member of DKC. DKC did not file Articles of Organization until later. Clauff and Menard claim, but neither provided evidence, that DKC adopted the Assignment after the company formed. Menard remained secondarily liable. Menard opened its new store in 2008. When the Sublease expired in 2011, Wal-Mart was owed more than $700,000. Menard paid $350,000 and sued Dial, DKC, and Clauff. The district court granted summary judgment, finding Clauff liable under Nebraska Revised Statute 21-2635: "[a]ll persons who assume to act as a limited liability company without authority to do so shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities of the company." The Eighth Circuit reversed for determination of whether common law or section 21-2635 preclude Clauff's argument that his liability may be avoided because DKC adopted the contract and commenced performance. View "Menard, Inc. v. Clauff" on Justia Law

A “viatical” or “life settlement” permits an insured to sell his life insurance policy. Federal tax and some state laws have been amended to accommodate the practice. In 2006, an agent persuaded Close, age 74, to apply for a $5 million life insurance policy. As submitted to PHL, his application falsely stated Close’s net worth and income, and failed to disclose his conviction for receiving illegal kickbacks. Under the agent’s guidance, Close falsely stated his net worth to obtain a two-year, $300,225 premium financing loan from CFC, a PHL-approved funding source. The policy was pledged as collateral; Close personally guaranteed 25 percent of the loan, believing that the policy would be worth $1.3 million in two-years, when it became “incontestable” under Minn. Stat. 61A.03.1(c) and that he would be able to sell it for $500,000. PHL conducted minimal investigation and received premiums of $272,025; CFC received $14,200 in fees; and the agent and a CFC employee split substantial commissions. In 2009, BNC explained Close’s options for repayment: refinancing, selling, or relinquishing the policy to the lender. The secondary market had crashed. Close surrendered the policy. When Close died in 2011, investigation revealed the fraudulent misrepresentations, but rescission was foreclosed by the incontestability statute. PHL sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was void as contrary to public policy for lack of an insurable interest. The district court agreed. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that permitting insurers to resist paying based on evidence that an insured used premium financing and planned to sell, is “not a result the Supreme Court of Minnesota would find acceptable in exercising its ‘delicate and undefined power’ to declare a contract void. View "PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Bank of Utah" on Justia Law

In 2001, St. Jude hired Tormey to sell cardiac-related medical devices. Tormey entered into several agreements, providing Tormey’s initial sales quota would be zero due to a noncompete agreement; that St. Jude would hire a technical support specialist (TSS) to assist Tormey; and that St. Jude could terminate Tormey if he failed to meet sales quotas. St. Jude made a $650,000 interest-free loan; Tormey executed a promissory note. Around the time he began selling for St. Jude’s, Tormey’s wife was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Tormey informed St. Jude of his wife’s condition. He began inquiring about when St. Jude would hire a TSS and negotiated sales quotas accordingly. Tormey rejected the TSS assigned in October 2003. Tormey’s wife’s condition worsened in November; Tormey thereafter did not meet quotas. She died in May, 2004. Two weeks later, St. Jude, terminated the agreements. Tormey claimed that he accepted St. Jude’s proposal that if Tormey waived any actions against St. Jude, it would waive repayment of the $650,000 and presumed his obligations had been discharged. There are no written documents and St. Jude denies any such agreement. The district court rejected Tormey’s counterclaims alleging fraud and, after a jury was unable to reach a verdict, entered judgment for St. Jude on the note, finding that it did not first commit a material breach. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Tormey" on Justia Law

IPSCO Tubulars contracted for Ajax to provide equipment to heat-treat steel pipe at IPSCO’s Blythesville plant, which produces pipe for use in the oil and gas industry. After installation, the product did not perform properly. Tubing processed through the equipment was badly distorted. IPSCO sued for breach of contract, gross negligence, and punitive damages. The district court found Ajax liable for breach of contract, awarding $5,162,298.55 in damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the breach-of-contract damages, holding that there were inadequate findings to support the award, and affirmed in all other respects. The most reasonable interpretation of the contract as a whole obligated Ajaxto provide equipment that could uniformly heat-treat pipe, at 96 fpm, without causing distortion, cracks or inconsistencies that would prevent the pipe's conversion to higher American Petroleum Institute grades; the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defects in the Ajax equipment was the cause of the defects in the pipe. View "IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. v. Ajax TOCCO Magnathermic Corp." on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Germain and GM Enterprises, filed suit against defendants, HCH and Metropolitan, alleging breach of contract claims related to an option to purchase based on the assignment of a lease agreement. The district court dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs were precluded from bringing the action where a state court already had decided the issue underlying the claims alleged in their federal complaint. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiffs' claims where their complaint alleged injuries caused by breach of contract and related to torts. Turning to section 13 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, the court believed that the Arkansas Supreme Court would hold that the state-court judgment in this case was sufficiently firm to be considered final for purposes of issue preclusion; based on the state court's conclusion and the terms of the subordination agreement, Germain was not entitled to specific performance of the option and dismissal of the federal declaratory-judgment action was appropriate; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to defendants. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Germain Real Estate v. HCH Toyota" on Justia Law

NanoMech, researcher and developer of nanotechnologies, filed suit against defendant, a former employee, for breach of a noncompete agreement. On appeal, NanoMech challenged the district court's judgment on the pleadings for defendant. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable under Arkansas law where any error in the district court's decision to convert defendant's motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings was harmless; under Arkansas law, a noncompete agreement must be valid as written; and a blanket prohibition on defendant's ability to seek employment of any kind with an employer in the nanotechnology industry anywhere in the world is overbroad, unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable. View "NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh" on Justia Law

Lincoln, a meat-packing company, and Puretz, an investor, formed Hastings, an Illinois LLC, to bid on cattle-processing plants being sold at a bankruptcy auction. Puretz was to contribute 70% of acquisition and start-up capital; Lincoln 30%, plus management and 40,000 head of cattle per year. Additional details about financing and operations were to be negotiated. To bid, Hastings had to deposit $250,000. Puretz contributed $150,000; Lincoln contributed $100,000. Hastings successfully bid at $3,900,000. Negotiations regarding operations and financing deteriorated. Hastings closed the purchase. Lincoln refused to contribute additional funds and dissociated from Hastings. Under Illinois law, if a member dissociates and the LLC does not dissolve, the LLC must purchase the dissociating member’s distributional interest. Lincoln sought a determination of fair value. The district court held that Lincoln and Puretz each held a 50% interest in Hastings, that the value of Hastings on the dissociation date was $3,900,000, and that Lincoln’s only contribution was $100,000, rejecting Lincoln’s assertions that its identification of the opportunity, business plan, and “sweat equity” had “substantial value.” The court concluded that the value of Lincoln’s interest was $1,950,000, less 30% that Lincoln failed to contribute ($1,170,000), plus return of $100,000, and awarded Lincoln $880,000. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Lincoln and Puretz contemplated that any capital contributed to Hastings would be returned in proportion to their contributions before profits or losses generated by operations were divided equally. Because Lincoln did not make its 30% contribution to capital, it was not entitled to a 30% distribution. View "Lincoln Provision, Inc. v. Aron Puretz" on Justia Law