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 case involves Plaintiffs (D. McCall and CCC&S Family, LLC) who entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Defendant (The Money Source, Inc.) for the sale of a property. The Defendant had the absolute and unilateral right to terminate the contract at any time and for any reason, even after closing, with the Plaintiffs' sole remedy being the return of their earnest money deposit. The Defendant exercised this right, terminating the agreement and returning the earnest money to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs then challenged this termination, leading to the legal proceedings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the Defendant did not have the legal authority to sell the property at the time it entered into the purchase and sale agreement and that there was a material factual dispute regarding this authority. The Plaintiffs' submissions were mostly conclusory statements without targeted citations to the record.
• Defendant: Presented evidence to establish that it owned the property and possessed the legal authority to sell the property at all material times. The Defendant also argued that it exercised its contractual right to terminate the agreement and return the earnest money, which did not constitute a breach of contract or result in actual damages to the Plaintiffs.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had the legal authority to sell the property at the time it entered into the purchase and sale agreement with the Plaintiffs.
• Whether the termination of the agreement by the Defendant constituted a breach of contract or resulted in actual damages to the Plaintiffs.
• Whether the Plaintiffs presented a material factual dispute in response to the Defendant’s showing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the ruling on costs and attorney fees and the order denying their motion to reconsider summary judgment.

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, J., concurred by Bogardus, J., and Medina, J.: The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately describe the claimed error on appeal and did not provide sufficient evidence or argument to support their claims against the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Defendant made a prima facie showing that it owned the property and had the legal authority to sell it, and that the contract allowed for its termination and the return of the Plaintiffs' earnest money without constituting a breach of contract or resulting in damages. The Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud were also found to be unsupported due to the express terms of the contract and lack of evidence for misrepresentation or detrimental reliance. The Court also noted that the Plaintiffs did not adequately challenge the enforceability of the contract or its provisions in the lower court, and thus, these arguments were not considered on appeal.