DeShazo v. Clayton
United States District Court for the District of Idaho
2006 WL 1794735 (2006)
Facts
On May 4, 2001, Paul Clayton purchased a property in Eagle, Idaho. Almost three years later, he transferred the property to the Paul B. Clayton Trust (the trust) (defendant). In August 2001, Clayton and two other individuals, Robert DeShazo and Douglas Landwer (collectively, the surviving members) (plaintiffs), signed articles of organization and an operating agreement to establish and operate Berkshire West, LLC, a limited-liability company. The operating agreement included language stating that all previous agreements among the members were superseded by the terms of the operating agreement. The operating agreement was fully executed by all parties. After Clayton died in April 2005, the trust began developing the property without the involvement of the surviving members. Subsequently, DeShazo and Landwer filed a lawsuit asserting numerous claims including breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, and equitable reliance and estoppel. The surviving members alleged that Clayton had either purchased the property on behalf of Berkshire West or intended to contribute the property to Berkshire West. Additionally, the surviving members argued that the trust’s efforts to develop the property were in contravention of their agreements with Clayton. The trust filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boyle, Mag.)
What to do next…
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
