Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

James Schlinger owned and operated Curtis Excavation and WW Construction. Schlinger, acting as president of WW Construction, entered into an oral agreement to lease his business and all associated equipment and land to Christopher McGhee and Jack Robinson. McGhee and Robinson formed Curtis-Westwood Construction as the entity to lease and operate the business. After eight months, Schlinger determined McGhee and Robinson were not properly managing the business and terminated the oral lease agreement. The parties disputed the financial implications of the termination. After a bench trial, the district court determined that Schlinger breached his oral agreement with Appellees, McGhee, Robinson, and Curtis-Westood Construction, and that Schlinger owed Plaintiffs $206,875. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's judgment on Appellees' breach of contract claim and rejected Appellants' argument that they should be awarded breach of contract damages, holding that the district court committed clear error in awarding damages as there was insufficient evidence in the record to justify an award of damages to either party; and (2) affirmed the district court's denial of Schlinger's claims for recovery under the theory of unjust enrichment, holding that Schlinger's claims were unsupported by the evidence.

After an audit, the Department of Revenue (DOR) determined that Qwest was not entitled to a refund of sales tax. The tax was incorrectly collected from Qwest's customers and remitted to the state because Qwest did not provide data showing the actual amount of tax collected and remitted by month and by country. Qwest subsequently produced to the DOR the actual sales tax information. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) supplemented the record with the actual data and reversed the DOR's decision. The district court affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the SBOE erred by considering the newly produced evidence. The Supreme Court (1)affirmed the SBOE's decision that Qwest was entitled to a refund, but concluded the SBOE erred by considering Qwest's evidence, which was not produced to the DOR during the audit; and (2) remanded so the refund amount could be calculated using an estimate procedure and information available during the audit.

Celeste Grynberg and her husband were co-owners of Grynberg Petroleum. Celeste filed a complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion against L&R Exploration Venture and numerous individuals and entities having an interest in the venture (collectively L&R), claiming that L&R owed her compensation for services Grynberg Petroleum provided to L&R and that she was entitled to payment of those amounts. The district court granted summary judgment for L&R and dismissed the complaint on the basis of res judicata, finding that Celeste was in privity with parties involved in prior litigation in Colorado and New York and her complaint involved the same subject matter and issues resolved in those proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Celeste was in privity with her husband, who was a party in the New York proceedings, as the assignee of his interest in L&R and with Grynberg Petroleum as the co-owner of the company and was bound by the prior rulings.

Burt Purcella established a trust into which he transferred his assets, including fifty percent ownership in a business. Purcella named his wife and children as successor trustees. Upon Purcella's death, the successor trustees were to divide the remaining trust assets between two trusts, the family trust and the marital trust. After Purcella's death, Children filed an action against Wife, claiming she breached her fiduciary obligations as trustee by depositing funds the marital trust received from the business into her personal account. The district court entered summary judgment enjoining Wife from depositing the funds into her personal account and finding the parties had agreed that 87.05% of all income received from the business would be allocated to the marital trust and distributed to Wife. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling that Wife was entitled to all income the marital trust received from the business, holding that Wife was entitled to payment of income the marital trust received from the business less any expenses incurred in administering the marital trust.

Appellants were the personal representatives of the estates of a husband and wife who were killed in a car accident. The accident was caused by a driver who, prior to the accident, had become intoxicated as a result of consuming alcoholic beverages at a bar and a saloon in Wyoming. Appellants filed a wrongful death and negligence complaint against the owners of the bar and saloon. Appellants also sought a judgment declaring Wyo. Stat. 12-8-301, which provides that no person who legally provides alcohol to another person is liable for damages caused by the intoxication of the other person, was unconstitutional if, as a matter of law, the statute provided immunity to Appellees for their conduct. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss on the ground that the Supreme Court had already found the statute to be constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) in the statute, the word "legally" in the phrase "legally provided" does not encompass municipal ordinances, and (2) the statute violates neither the constitutional doctrine of equal protection nor the constitutional prohibition of special laws.

Appellant, owner of sixty-seven shares of corporate stock of Burnett Livestock Company, appealed the district court's summary judgment that imposed a constructive trust upon those sixty-seven shares for the benefit of several of her relatives including appellees, her aunt and uncle, in accordance with the provisions of a document entitled Agreement for Disposition of Rental and/or Royalty Income, signed on February 20, 1989 by appellant's mother and appellant's grandmother. At issue was whether the evidence submitted supported the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. The court reversed the order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded for further proceedings holding that there was insufficient evidence on the record to prove the elements of a constructive trust.

Joe's Concrete and Lumber, Inc. ("Joe's Concrete") sought attorneys fees from Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. ("CWC") after CWC breached its contract with Joe's concrete. At issue was whether the district court properly denied attorneys fees. The court held that Joe's Concrete was entitled to recover its attorneys fees where the attorneys fees were not an element of damages to be proved at trial but were collateral to the merits of the case.