Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Construction & Development Co.

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the judgment because the defendants were not entitled to relief, but reasons that Landmark's tortious-interference claim had merged into the earlier specific-performance decree. In the concurrence's view, the decree terminated the contractual relationship and left any later enforcement to contempt proceedings or an action on the judgment. The concurrence also explains that the specific-performance decree was improperly framed and should not have required ongoing judicial supervision. The concurrence reaches these conclusions on grounds not preserved by the defendants.