Meyer v. Christie

2007 WL 3120695 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Meyer and Pratt (Ps) formed a joint venture with defendants Christie and Glen (Ds) for the construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. Ps have considerable experience in both residential and commercial development, with particular expertise in the development, construction, and management of residential mixed-use projects which combine high quality affordable single and multi-family housing with commercial and recreational amenities. Ds were to contribute their contacts and expertise in the Junction City community, negotiate with local government officials for cash incentives to build the project, and coordinate the purchase of the property. Ps would contribute their expertise in residential project development to the joint venture and would be responsible to plan, develop, manage, and coordinate the construction of the project. Meyer (P) was also involved in another project called ERP. Mr. Duff called P about ERP, in that its loans with Security Savings were going to be called. Mr. Duff had been the officer that had approved and accepted those loans back when he had still been employed with Security Savings and P was the personal guarantor of those loans. P said he believed that ERP was working with Security Savings on a refinancing plan. Mr. Duff told P that if Ds heard about these alleged difficulties they would likely back out of the joint venture. Shortly after this phone conversation, Christie and Duff called Mr. Pratt to meet with them. Pratt was surprised when the primary topic of the meeting turned out to be the alleged financial difficulties of ERP. Christie told Pratt that he had sought a loan from Security Savings to buy the property for The Bluffs, but that he had been turned down because the bank would not loan money to P or any entity associated with him because he allegedly had a loan with Security Savings that was in default. Duff had been on a camping trip with the president of Security Savings when he told Duff that P had made fraudulent misrepresentations on a bank financing statement for ERP and that some ERP equipment that was listed as collateral was missing. Duff had relayed this information to Christie. As a result of receiving this information, Christie no longer wanted to do business with P. Ps sued Ds and Security Savings (D). Ps claimed D had duties of care and confidentiality to both P and ERP to keep financial information private and confidential. D's own privacy policy prohibited the disclosure of this information. P asserted a claim against D for breach of contract. Ps also assert a claim against all of Ds for civil conspiracy. D moves to dismiss Ps' claims against it.