AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiffs, Stromei Realty, LLC, and its co-owners, sued Rayellen Resources, Inc., and individual defendants associated with Rayellen, for breach of an exclusive listing agreement and an oral agreement for a share in the profits from the sale of the L-Bar Ranch, among other causes of action. The sale of the L-Bar to Triple Bar S Ranch was never completed, leading to the lawsuit. The jury awarded substantial damages to the plaintiffs for breach of the oral agreement and the exclusive listing agreement.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, George P. Eichwald, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Rayellen and the individual defendants breached the exclusive listing agreement and an oral agreement for a share in the profits from the sale of the L-Bar Ranch. They also claimed tortious interference with contracts and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
• Defendants: Contended that there was no breach as Stromei Realty failed to produce a ready, willing, and able buyer; there was no meeting of the minds on the oral contract; and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover on the oral contract due to the failure of a condition precedent. They also argued that the district court erred in denying their motions for directed verdicts on these issues and in granting the plaintiff's motion for directed verdict on the statute of frauds.

Legal Issues

• Whether Stromei Realty failed to produce a ready, willing, and able buyer.
• Whether there was a meeting of the minds on the oral contract.
• Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover on the oral contract due to the failure of a condition precedent.
• Whether the district court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of the statute of frauds.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's post-judgment interest ruling and remanded for entry of an amended judgment consistent with the opinion. The Court affirmed the district court on all other issues raised on appeal.

Reasons

• The Court found substantial evidence supporting the jury's findings against the defendants on multiple grounds. It held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for directed verdicts on the issues of a ready, willing, and able buyer, meeting of the minds, and the failure of a condition precedent. The Court also found no error in the district court's directed verdict on the statute of frauds defense, as the agreement was for net profits, not an interest in land. The Court concluded that all judgments against Rayellen and the individual defendants were premised upon findings of tortious interference with contracts or intentional conduct in breaching the duty of good faith and fair dealing, warranting a 15% post-judgment interest rate on the entire judgment. The Court affirmed the award of pre-judgment interest, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.