S-14-0380 Facilities Cost Management Group, LLC v. Otoe County School District 66-111 a/k/a Nebraska City Public Schools (Appellant)
Douglas County District Court, Judge J. Michael Coffey
Attorneys: Steven E. Achelpohl & John A. Svoboda (Gross & Welch, P.C., L.L.O --- Larry E. Welch, Jr., Damien J. Wright, & Larry E. Welch, Sr. (Welch Law Firm, P.C.) (Appellant)
Proceedings below: Following a jury trial, Appellee was awarded $1,972,993.00.
Issues: The District Court erred in 1) finding in its summary judgment order that the concept of fixing the Project Budget cost was not incorporated into the contract, 2) granting Appellee's partial motion for summary judgment holding that section 12.7 of the contract was not ambiguous, 3) granting Appellee's partial motion for summary judgment holding that the last sentence of section 11.2 of the contract was not ambiguous and determining the provision's meaning on the basis of the parties' course of dealing, 4) refusing to submit an instruction to the jury which instructed them that the last sentence of section 11.2 was, as a matter of law as determined by the Court, defined to mean the Square Foot Methodology due to the parties' course of dealing, 5) admitting over Appellant’s objection, Exhibit 99 which was not supported by adequate foundation, 6) not granting Appellant’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of damages, 7) allowing accountant Craig Clawson's opinion when not supported by adequate foundation, 8) failing to instruct the jury that Appellee had a duty to disclose all matters which it had knowledge which was important that its client should know, 9) instructing the jury, in Jury lnstruction 2, that the parties had entered into a contract when an essential element, the price for Appellee's services, was left for future negotiation and which created a factual question as to whether there was ever a "meeting of the minds," and 10) not granting Appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial and remittitur, based on the foregoing errors and/or Appellant’s entitlement to a $100,000 credit.