James R. Webster

On a summary judgment motion arising from a failed contract for a prefabricated modular home, the moving parties sought recovery of deposits and personal liability against the corporate principals.

The court granted judgment against the contracting corporation for breach of contract and held the individual principals personally liable for two deposit payments induced by false representations that framing and roof truss work had commenced or was about to commence.

Applying the civil fraud test and principles governing piercing the corporate veil, the court found the representations were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the moving parties relied on them in making the payments.

Punitive damages were refused, but storage costs and partial indemnity costs were awarded.

At a pre-trial conference for a construction dispute, the parties agreed to vacate the scheduled trial dates and establish a protocol for a joint site inspection.

The inspection will involve representatives from various engineering and consulting firms to determine structural deficiencies, remediation methods, and costs.

The court issued a consent order detailing the inspection process, deadlines for expert reports, and scheduled a further pre-trial conference.

The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment that retroactively reduced and prospectively terminated the respondent husband's spousal support obligations.

The husband cross-appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a 2005 consent order and a 1985 marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the wife's and her new partner's income tax returns to impute income.

The court substituted a new spousal support order with a step-down approach but no termination date.

The husband's cross-appeal was dismissed, as there was no basis to set aside the consent order and the marriage contract was unenforceable.

The moving party brought motions to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that denied his request to expand the appeal records and hear two appeals together, and ordered him to perfect both appeals within 45 days.

The moving party sought an adjournment of his review motions to obtain further evidence, which the court denied because the review must be based on the material before the single judge.

The court upheld the single judge's decision regarding the records and hearing the appeals together.

However, the court clarified the timeline for perfecting the cross-appeal in the family law matter, allowing the moving party 45 days after the appellant perfects her appeal.

The motion was otherwise dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent lawyer.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower court's order did not terminate the responding party's rights to seek injunctive relief or to have a notice of sale declared invalid.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.