FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Contracts

[12/31] Alpine Bank v. Hubbell
In a lawsuit arising after plaintiffs failed to repay a construction loan made by plaintiff-bank, summary judgment against defendants-homeowners on all claims and on their counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) a contract counterclaim, based on an alleged breach of the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from bank's failure to oversee the construction, was barred by a provision in the parties' agreement; 2) for purposes of negligent-misrepresentation counterclaims, one alleged misrepresentation regarding the contractor was nonactionable puffery and the others lacked the requisite state of mind; 3) bank did not have a duty to disclose negative information regarding the construction or the contractor; and 4) bank's advertising slogan did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

[01/06] CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
In a commercial contract dispute, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, one of the defendants was not an indispensable party; and 2) thus, that defendant could be dropped as a party so as to preserve diversity jurisdiction.

[01/06] Edwards v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc.
Mutual release agreement between an auto dealer and the manufacturer, in which Plaintiffs relinquished all existing legal claims against the manufacturer for valid consideration, is enforceable and not prohibited by the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act. Plaintiffs' various common law claims were correctly dismissed because they do not fall within the limited exceptions to their release agreement.

[01/05] Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Motorist's warranty claims were properly dismissed because the express and implied warranties do not cover tread wear of the original equipment tires on his minivan. The vehicle warranty expressly and repeatedly excludes tires from coverage, and the warranty from Michelin expires with the tread; because these are special "run-flat" tires, their merchantability cannot be determined by a comparison to standard passenger tires.

[12/15] Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of the US of Am., Inc.
In seeking to implement its "Wisconsin Realignment Plan," Defendant is enjoined from interfering with the current jurisdiction of a chartered, local council of Girl Scouts, pending final resolution on the merits of the local council's legal challenge. As a "dealer" protected by the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the local council enjoys a statutory presumption that it would be irreparably harmed by Defendant's attempts to unilaterally remove a large portion of its jurisdiction.

Read More

Probate Trusts

[12/31] Boys and Girls Club of Petaluma v. Walsh
Probate court's modification of a charitable trust in 2007 pursuant to Probate Code section 15403 is affirmed where: 1) "all beneficiaries" of the charitable trust consented to the modification in accordance with section 15403(a); and 2) the broad discretion conferred up on the trustees did not constitute a "material purpose" which would prevent a probate court from modifying the charitable trust pursuant to section 15403(b).

[12/29] Estate of Shellenbarger
Denial of petition to exclude natural father's entitlement to distribution in decedent's estate is affirmed where a probate court may not, on principles of equity, disinherit a natural parent who abandons a child who later dies intestate.

[12/22] Estate of Bowles
Dismissal of plaintiff's civil complaint and order denying plaintiff's first amended Probate Code section 17200 petition are reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing; 2) plaintiff's allegations brought him within the rule that a trust beneficiary can pursue a cause of action against a third party who actively participated in or knowingly benefits from a trustee's breach of trust; 3) the civil complaint was not a probate matter under section 17200; but 4) the civil complaint was related to the section 17200 petition and whether the related civil complaint should be heard in the probate court must be resolved pursuant to local superior court rules; and 5) the probate court erred in dismissing plaintiff's first amended section 17200 petition.

[12/22] Estate of Mooney
In a claim involving California's antilapse statute, probate court's order construing Probate Code section 21110 to require that each of the surviving adult children of decedent's sisters receive an equal one-seventh of decedent's estate is reversed and remanded where: 1) California's antilapse statute has consistently provided that when a bequest to a protected transferee would otherwise lapse due to the transferee's death, that bequest passes by right of representation to his or her descendants; 2) the probate court erred in construing sections 21110 and 240 differently; and 3) the order must be modified to provide that decedent's sister's one-half share of decedent's residual estate be divided equally among her four children and that decedent's other sister's one-half share be divided equally among her three children, subject to any disclaimers of benefits that may apply.

[11/26] Estate of Bennett
In a suit against defendant-police officers for the shooting death of decedent following gunfire initiated by decedent, judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly granted defendant-officer's motion to dismiss where the estate failed to show a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property; 2) the district court did not err in dismissal by judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff-estate did not meet its pleading requirements, plaintiff-estate waived its equal protection claim, and there was no property interest that was allegedly taken to support the takings claim; and 3) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper.

Read More