Opinion ID: 2636776
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The anticipatory breach issue is properly before this court.

Text: DCMC argues that we should not consider ACC's anticipatory breach arguments because ACC cannot properly advance a theory of anticipatory breach for the first time in the opening brief of a second appeal, eight years after filing its complaint. ACC responds that, although it has honed its arguments over eight years of litigation, there is nothing new about the anticipatory breach argument. We have held that, in general, a party may not present new issues or advance new theories to secure a reversal of a lower court decision. [15] We have adopted a liberal approach towards determining whether an issue or theory of a case was raised in a lower court proceeding, however, and will consider new arguments on appeal if they are closely related to the trial court arguments and could have been gleaned from [the] pleadings. [16] Key words or phrases do not need to appear in the pleadings in order for us to find that an argument was raised prior to the appeal. [17] Here, although ACC did not use the exact terms anticipatory breach or repudiation prior to this appeal, ACC established the basis for its present argument by alleging  in its complaint and in its first appeal of the superior court's finding  that it was DCMC that first breached the agreement. Additionally, the factual findings made by the superior court in the original hearing and on remand, particularly the findings that led to the declaratory judgment on the terms of the May 28 agreement, provide an adequate factual basis for us to determine whether DCMC's additional demands constitute an anticipatory breach. Because ACC has consistently argued, beginning with its complaint, that DCMC was the first to breach the May 28 agreement and that a declaratory judgment is necessary to establish this breach, and because the superior court has issued a declaratory judgment and made other findings regarding the agreement and the parties' subsequent actions, we conclude that the anticipatory breach argument is properly before this court.