Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. v. Guarantee Group
992 N.W.2d 736
Neb.2023Background
- Bruce Lavalleur, P.C. (through CPA Bruce Lavalleur) performed extensive accounting work analyzing financials for Guarantee Group’s Copper Creek Estates development at the request of Sean O’Connor.
- After the work, Lavalleur alleges Sean agreed Guarantee Group would pay $205,000 by withholding $1,000 from the closing of each of the 205 homes in the project.
- Guarantee Group sold homes but never paid the $205,000; it offered $42,000 at one point, which Lavalleur rejected.
- At trial, the district court granted a directed verdict for Guarantee Group on Lavalleur, P.C.’s breach-of-contract claim, reasoning the alleged oral agreement fell within the statute of frauds 1-year writing requirement.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the directed-verdict ruling, treating Lavalleur’s testimony as true for purposes of the motion, and reversed as to the corporate plaintiff’s claim, remanding for a new trial; the individual real‑estate claim was affirmed as conceded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an enforceable oral contract was formed (offer, acceptance, consideration) | Sean agreed to the $1,000-per-closing plan after Lavalleur completed requested accounting work; past performance was at defendant’s request and thus valid consideration. | Testimony was self-serving and insufficient to prove meeting of the minds or valid consideration. | Rejected defendant’s directed-verdict claim: viewing nonmovant evidence as true, a reasonable jury could find offer, acceptance, and consideration (past-services exception). |
| Whether the oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds 1-year provision (§ 36‑202(1)) | The contract (pay $1,000 per closing up to 205 homes) is by its terms capable of performance within one year, so it is not within the statute. | Closing schedule showed some closings years later, so performance realistically exceeded one year and thus the agreement falls within the statute. | Reversed district court: statute of frauds 1‑year test looks to whether the contract, by its terms, is incapable of performance within one year; here terms did not require >1 year, so writing was not required. |
| Whether the agreement is void as against public policy under the State Board of Accountancy contingent-fee rule | N/A (plaintiff argued the later promise was not a contingent-fee arrangement) | The alleged fee was contingent (based on finding a solution) and no written disclosure was provided as required by board rules, rendering the contract void. | Rejected: the promise to pay $1,000 per closing (as pled) was an unconditional promise, not a contingent-fee under the rule; no basis to declare the contract void as against public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 164 U.S. 418 (1896) (statute-of-frauds 1‑year inquiry asks whether contract by its terms requires performance beyond one year)
- Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276 (2014) (Nebraska follows Warner approach; statute bars agreements that by their terms cannot be performed within one year)
- Stuht v. Sweesy, 48 Neb. 767 (1896) (recognizes exception to past-consideration rule when services were rendered at promisor’s request)
- Alpha Wealth Advisors v. Cook, 313 Neb. 237 (2023) (directed-verdict standard: treat nonmovant’s competent evidence as true and resolve all inferences in their favor)
- Rath v. Selection Research, Inc., 246 Neb. 340 (1994) (example that lifetime employment may be performable within one year; illustrates statutory test)
- Sinu v. Concordia Univ., 313 Neb. 218 (2023) (public-policy doctrine disfavours voiding contracts except in cases free from doubt)