Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Allen Kraft and Jim Kost operated a custom combining partnership. They ceased doing business as a partnership in early 2003, but continued to share equipment and work in 2003 and 2004. In 2008, Kost sued Kraft to formally dissolve the partnership. Kraft counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that after the partnership was terminated in 2003, Kost had orally agreed to lease some of Kraft's combining equipment in 2003 and 2004. Kraft alleged Kost owed $150,000 under the oral lease. Kraft also claimed that the parties had entered into an oral agreement for Kraft to do certain work for Kost in 2005, and that Kost owed him $10,000 for the work. Kraft appealed the a district court judgment dissolving the partnership and dismissing his counterclaim seeking damages for breach of an oral agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the equitable theories of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit and did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine precluding evidence or argument of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. View "Kost v. Kraft" on Justia Law

Balvitsch and Weisgram sued Tollefson for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and other claims. Balvitsch and Weisgram moved to hold Tollefson in contempt, alleging Tollefson failed to obey a February 8, 2013 court order that instructed Tollefson not to make any further attacks on the parties and other non-party individuals during the course of the litigation. Balvitsch and Weisgram alleged the court ordered Tollefson at the scheduling conference to stop all attacks against a non-party individual and to stick to the facts of the case during the litigation. They alleged Tollefson ignored the court's order by threatening to launch websites defaming Weisgram and the non-party individual. The trial court entered an order to show cause noting the time and place for the contempt hearing and ordered that Tollefson appear and show why he should not have been held in contempt. The hearing took place, and the court found Tollefson in contempt and ordered sanctions. Tollefson appealed that order and sanction, arguing he did not receive proper notice of the hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding Tollefson did not have adequate notice of the contempt proceeding. View "Balvitsch v. Dakota Burger N Fries Corp." on Justia Law

Sagebrush Resources, LLC, appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing with prejudice its action for trespass and for injunctive relief against Daryl, Larry, and Galen Peterson. The trial court found the action was frivolous and not made in good faith, and awarded the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Sagebrush argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in deciding Sagebrush's claims were frivolous and not made in good faith and in awarding the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Sagebrush Resources, LLC v. Peterson" on Justia Law

In April 2013, Randy Holkesvig petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against a business, Dakota Spas. Holkesvig's petition essentially alleged that after buying a hot tub cover from Dakota Spas: employees "order[ed] the wrong color of a hot tub cover" and "refus[ed] to send [him] receipts in a timely fashion;" a Dakota Spas individual "yelled" at him, he was told he needed a credit card receipt even though he claimed he was never given one; Dakota Spas "harassed" him by failing to give him an immediate credit back on his credit card and by requiring him to order a new hot tub cover to correct their alleged error; and Dakota Spas was dishonest with him and initiated unwanted telephone calls and sent unsolicited mail to him. Holkesvig appealed the district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of his petition and his request for an "oral hearing." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a disorderly conduct restraining order cannot be issued against a business, only natural persons. View "Holkesvig v. Dakota Spas" on Justia Law

Ford Motor Credit Company appealed a district court order dismissing its action to renew a prior judgment. Ford sued Jeremy Halvorson in Minnesota on a contract matter. A judgment was entered in Minnesota against Halvorson. Halvorson moved from Minnesota to North Dakota, and the Minnesota judgment was registered in North Dakota in 2011. Halvorson did not pay the judgment. In 2013, Ford commenced this action to renew the judgment by personal service of the summons and complaint upon Halvorson. Halvorson did not respond to the summons and complaint, and Ford moved for entry of a default judgment against Halvorson. The district court, on its own motion, denied the motion for default judgment and instead dismissed Ford's complaint with prejudice, concluding that Ford's action was an improper duplicate action on the original debt and that the proper method to renew a judgment was by affidavit under the procedure provided in N.D.C.C. 28-20-21. Ford moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing its action, and the court entered an order affirming dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing Ford's action on the judgment. Because there was no reason apparent on the record to deny the default judgment, the Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter a default judgment in favor of Ford in its action to renew the prior judgment. View "Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Halvorson" on Justia Law

James Leach, IDA Marketing Corporation, and IDA of Moorhead Corporation appealed a judgment holding them jointly and severally liable to Reed Danuser for claims involving Danuser's termination as president and chief executive officer of the corporations and Leach's breach of a fiduciary duty to Danuser and requiring IDA Moorhead to pay Danuser for loans he made to IDA Moorhead. Upon careful analysis of the inter-company agreements and facts presented at the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding: (1) James Leach was responsible for freezing out Danuser's interests in the corporations, which, as found by the court, involved more than just the wrongful termination of Danuser's employment; (2) Leach was not a party to a stock buy-sell agreement, and under the circumstances of this case as found by the district court involving the freeze out of Danuser's interests in the intertwined corporations, the court's determination of damages was not a misapplication of the law and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable; (3) both James Leach and IDA Moorhead gained from James Leach's actions, which were attributable to the corporation. The district court decided James Leach had control of the corporations when he breached his fiduciary duties to Danuser. Therefore, the district court did not misapply the law in deciding James Leach and the corporations were jointly and severally liable for Danuser's damages and the court's decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. View "Danuser v. IDA Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

McColl Farms, LLC appealed district court orders that dismissed its claims against Lisa Pflaum for unjust enrichment, misappropriation, racketeering, and conversion and ordering McColl Farms and its attorney to pay her attorney's fees. McColl Farms is a limited liability company with three members. Aaron McColl and Katie Watson held minority interests. Aaron McColl worked for the farm and was married to Pflaum until they divorced in December 2009. In December 2011, McColl Farms and Aaron McColl sued Pflaum for unjust enrichment, coercion, conversion, misappropriation, and racketeering. They alleged that Pflaum, individually or in concert with Aaron McColl, converted and misappropriated more than $650,000 from McColl Farms between 2007 and 2009. Pflaum moved to dismiss the action or alternatively for summary judgment. Pflaum also moved for sanctions against her opponents. McColl Farms and Aaron McColl then moved for partial summary judgment, which was accompanied by an affidavit from DeWayne Johnston, McColl Farms and Aaron McColl's attorney, with exhibits attached, including documents related to Aaron McColl and Pflaum's banking records. Pflaum objected to the admission of Johnston's affidavit. Later, Aaron McColl and Cynthia McColl (the LLC's majority partner) also filed affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment. Ultimately the trial court granted Pflaum's motion and dismissed all of the claims against Aaron McColl and Pflaum. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims for misappropriation, racketeering, and conversion. However, it reversed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, and one that granted Pflaum's request for sanctions. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McColl Farms v. Pflaum" on Justia Law

Northern Grain Equipment, LLC entered into contracts with Thimjon Farms Partnership and Hagemeister Farms to construct grain-handling systems on their respective properties. Neither Thimjon nor Hagemeister were customers of First International Bank & Trust. Both Thimjon and Hagemeister made down payments to Northern Grain, which were deposited in Northern Grain's account at First International. Northern Grain never constructed the grain-handling systems and discontinued business. Thimjon and Hagemeister brought separate actions against First International, alleging First International's decision to cease loaning money to Northern Grain resulted in Northern Grain breaching its contracts with Thimjon and Hagemeister and that First International intentionally misled Northern Grain to the detriment of Thimjon and Hagemeister. First International moved for summary judgment. While the motion was pending, Thimjon and Hagemeister moved to amend their complaints to add a claim for deceit and to seek exemplary damages. The district court denied the motion to amend, granted First International's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment dismissing Thimjon's and Hagemeister's claims with prejudice. Thimjon and Hagemeister appealed, arguing the district court erred by granting First International's motion and by denying their motion to amend. Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thimjon Farms Partnership v. First International Bank & Trust" on Justia Law

Janet L. Brash, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Larry R. Brash, appealed judgment entered after a bench trial that dismissed her action against William M. Gulleson. We affirm. In the mid-1980s, Dr. Brash began running cows on Gulleson's ranch under an oral agreement to operate on a "60/40 share basis." Gulleson provided care and feed and received 60 percent of the calf crop from Dr. Brash's cows, and Dr. Brash provided veterinarian services. In the fall of 1997, Dr. Brash supervised an inventory and evaluation of cows on the Gulleson ranch, which included cows owned by Gulleson, Dr. Brash, and two or three others who had agreements with Gulleson. At that time, Dr. Brash had 108 cows on the Gulleson ranch. In 2000, Dr. Brash and Gulleson executed a written Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Brashes agreed to furnish 130 cows presently situated on the Gulleson farm to be cared for by Gulleson, and Gulleson would in return give the Brashes 40 percent of the calf crop each year. After Dr. Brash's death in 2004, Janet Brash testified she became the sole owner of all 130 cows and their offspring; however, when she demanded the return of the estate's and her portion of the herd, Gulleson returned only seven cows. In 2005, Janet Brash brought this action against Gulleson, alleging Gulleson failed to comply with the Agreement executed in 2000. After trial, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, holding in part that Dr. Brash had failed to provide 130 cows as required under the contract, which constituted a failure of consideration, and that Janet Brash had failed to prove a breach of the agreement by Gulleson. The court dismissed Brash's claims with prejudice. Judgment was entered in June 2012. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding there was a failure of consideration in the performance of the Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement between the Brashes and Gulleson. View "Brash v. Gulleson" on Justia Law

Barbara McDermott appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding Kevin Pifer $80,957.07 in damages for unlawful interference with business, and several other orders issued by the district court in connection with these proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that a purchase option given to Pifer by her mother, Dorothy Bevan, was a valid and enforceable gift. Furthermore, the Court concluded the interference with business claim was properly presented to the jury, the evidence supports the jury verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion in its related rulings and orders. View "Pifer v. McDermott" on Justia Law