Case Title: Jurkovich v. Tomlinson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jurkovich v. Tomlinson1995 WY 179905 P.2d 409Case Number: 94-181, 94-182Decided: 10/31/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
 

Eli 
JURKOVICH,

 Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

Emery TOMLINSON and Allyn 
Mae Tomlinson, husband and wife; and Eric A. Tomlinson, Individually, and d/b/a 
Eric's Land and Cattle Company, a Wyoming Partnership, jointly and 
severally,

 Appellees 
(Defendants).

Eric A. TOMLINSON, 
Individually, and d/b/a Eric's Land and Cattle Company, a Wyoming Partnership, 
jointly and severally,

 Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

Eli 
JURKOVICH,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Fremont County, John D. Troughton, J.

Joel M. Vincent 
of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, for Eli 
Jurkovich.

Robert B. Ranck 
of Ranck & Schwartz, Jackson, and Timothy W. Miller, Casper, for Emery 
Tomlinson, Allyn Mae Tomlinson and Eric Tomlinson.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Eli Jurkovich 
prevailed on a claim of fraudulent inducement before a jury. The district court 
granted Emery Tomlinson's, Allyn Mae Tomlinson's, and Eric A. Tomlinson's motion 
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Eli Jurkovich appeals that 
decision. The same jury rejected a counterclaim by Eric Tomlinson and he appeals 
that decision. We reverse the district court's decision to grant judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict, but affirm the jury's decision rejecting the 
counterclaim.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      In Appeal No. 
94-181, appellant, Eli Jurkovich (Jurkovich), presents the following 
issues:

A. The damages awarded by 
the jury on plaintiff's fraud claim bore no relation to the injury inflicted, 
which called for rescission and return of the consideration 
paid.

B. The trial court's 
awarding of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on plaintiff's fraud 
claim was an abuse of discretion.

C. The trial court erred 
in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Eric 
Tomlinson's counterclaim for breach of contract, because Eric Tomlinson had no 
ability to perform his obligations under that contract.

[¶3]      Appellees, Emery 
Tomlinson, Allyn Mae Tomlinson, and Eric Tomlinson, individually and d/b/a 
Eric's Land and Cattle Company, state the issues as:

1. Whether the district 
court correctly ruled that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for 
the jury's finding of fraud.

2. Whether there is any 
legal basis for a four-fold increase in the jury's damage award for 
fraud.

3. Whether there was 
evidence upon which the jury could properly find Eli Jurkovich liable for breach 
of contract.

[¶4]      In Appeal No. 
94-182, appellant, Eric Tomlinson, individually and d/b/a Eric's Land and Cattle 
Company, states the issue as:

Is the jury's finding 
that appellant Eric Tomlinson was not damaged by appellee Eli Jurkovich's breach 
of contract contrary to the great weight of the evidence presented at 
trial?

[¶5]      Appellee, 
Jurkovich, restates the issue:

Whether there was 
sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Eric Tomlinson had 
suffered no contract damages[.]

II. 
FACTS

[¶6]      A summary of the 
facts in this case is recorded in Jurkovich v. Estate of Tomlinson, 843 P.2d 1166, 1167-71 (Wyo. 1992). In that case, we reversed the district court's 
decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Emery Tomlinson, 
Allyn Mae Tomlinson, and Eric Tomlinson. In the matter before us, the thrust of 
Jurkovich's complaint is that he was fraudulently induced into assuming certain 
financial obligations regarding a farm located in Fremont County, Wyoming. Eric 
Tomlinson's counterclaim is for damages he allegedly incurred as a result of 
Jurkovich's breach of the assumption agreement under which he assumed financial 
obligations with respect to the farm. Further facts will be discussed as 
required. 

III. 
DISCUSSION

A. RENEWAL OF A MOTION 
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AFTER TRIAL

[¶7]      A judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict, which was filed in this case, is procedurally 
identical to the new motion for judgment as a matter of law, renewed after 
trial, mandated by W.R.C.P. 50(b). Our review, regardless of the label attached, 
is identical and we will not defer to the trial court's decision. Ames v. 
Sundance State Bank, 850 P.2d 607, 609 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Wilson v. McMahon, 
831 P.2d 1152, 1154 (Wyo. 1992)). Our goal is to ascertain whether the evidence, 
when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but not 
otherwise weighed by us, is such that reasonable persons can reach but one 
conclusion. Id. Thus, if a jury acted unreasonably and returned a verdict 
contrary to the one reasonable conclusion that could be reached, a judgment as a 
matter of law may be granted. Cargill, Inc. v. Mountain Cement Co., 891 P.2d 57, 
62 (Wyo. 1995). If, however, there is more than one conclusion that reasonable 
jurors could reach, a judgment as a matter of law is inappropriate. 
Id.

[¶8]      The judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict granted in this case must be reversed. The jury did 
not act unreasonably when it concluded that Emery and Allyn Mae Tomlinson 
committed actual fraud. Fraud is established when a plaintiff demonstrates, by 
clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the defendant made a false 
representation intended to induce action by the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff 
reasonably believed the representation to be true; and (3) the plaintiff relied 
on the false representation and suffered damages. Lavoie v. Safecare Health 
Service, Inc., 840 P.2d 239, 252 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Duffy v. Brown, 708 P.2d 433, 437 (Wyo. 1985)).

[¶9]      In July of 1985, 
Emery Tomlinson told Jurkovich that the Fremont County farm was worth 
$450,000.00 and that a $160,000.00 note, financed at ten percent interest, was 
owed on the farm. Emery Tomlinson also indicated that $15,000.00 was owed on a 
windrower and that the $160,000.00 note required yearly payments of 
approximately $30,000.00. By assuming the responsibility to pay the $160,000.00 
note and the $15,000.00 note, Jurkovich believed he would receive a one-half 
interest in the farm. Emery Tomlinson provided this information with the 
intention of inducing Jurkovich to assume responsibility for the two 
notes.

[¶10]   However, the information Emery 
Tomlinson provided was false. The farm was not worth $450,000.00 in July of 
1985. In March of 1985, the farm had been listed for sale on a farm information 
sheet with a local real estate firm for $300,000.00. The asking price was later 
reduced to $275,000.00. In addition to misrepresenting the value of the farm, 
Emery Tomlinson also misrepresented the repayment schedule for the $160,000.00 
loan. Jurkovich was led to believe that he would be paying $30,000.00 on a 
yearly basis. In a letter dated July 25, 1985, Emery Tomlinson admitted to 
Jurkovich and his wife that there was a balloon payment due on June 1, 1987, but 
assured Jurkovich that he would "request a continuous pay out based on the same 
terms as we are presently paying." Apparently, no such request was ever 
made.

[¶11]   This evidence supports the jury's 
conclusion that Emery Tomlinson misrepresented the value of the farm and the 
repayment schedule for the debt owed against the farm. The jury concluded that 
these misrepresentations were made in hopes of inducing Jurkovich to assume the 
responsibility of paying approximately $30,000.00 per year in exchange for a 
one-half interest in the farm. Nothing in the record renders Jurkovich's initial 
reliance on these misrepresentations unreasonable. He had no reason to believe 
that the Tomlinsons were lying about the value of the farm or the repayment 
schedule. In reliance on these misrepresentations, Jurkovich purchased a 
$35,000.00 cashier's check which was deposited in the Eric Tomlinson Land & 
Cattle account. Jurkovich intended that the $35,000.00 be used to pay down the 
debt owed on the farm as quickly as possible.

[¶12]   Based on the foregoing evidence, it 
was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the Tomlinsons committed actual 
fraud on Jurkovich. The jury awarded Jurkovich $30,807.00 in damages, obviously 
concluding that the extra $5,000.00 was voluntarily surrendered, and we cannot 
say that the jury's decision was unreasonable as a matter of 
law.

B. RESCISSION 
CLAIM

[¶13]   Jurkovich complains that the 
$30,807.00 award is insufficient since rescission was the proper remedy. 
Therefore, he argues that he is entitled to $124,000.00 in damages. This 
meritless argument is untimely. Jurkovich did not challenge the special 
interrogatories submitted to the jury which asked the jury "[w]hat amount of 
compensatory damages should be awarded to Eli Jurkovich?" Nor did Jurkovich 
argue for rescission at trial or submit any jury instructions regarding 
rescission. His failure to raise this issue before the district court bars him 
from arguing it on appeal. Ford v. Starr Fireworks, Inc., 874 P.2d 230, 235 
(Wyo. 1994).

[¶14]   Even if we were to consider this 
argument, we would reject it. The fraud Jurkovich suffered was fully exposed by 
the time he signed the assumption agreement in August of 1985. He signed that 
agreement with full knowledge of the true repayment schedule for the note. Being 
aware that the repayment schedule was not as it had been portrayed, he should 
have inquired into the true value of the farm. The jury correctly concluded that 
the wool had been removed from his eyes by the time he signed the assumption 
agreement. We will not disturb the jury's award.

C. ERIC TOMLINSON'S 
COUNTERCLAIM

[¶15]   The jury in this case tempered 
legalistic formulas with a healthy dose of common sense. This is precisely the 
role reserved for the jury and we agree with the result in this case. This same 
rationale disposes of Eric Tomlinson's argument that he is entitled to damages 
on his counterclaim. The jury was aware of the initial fraud and the fact that 
Jurkovich poured approximately $95,000.00 into the farm in addition to the 
$30,807.00 they awarded him. This knowledge, combined with the fact that Eric 
Tomlinson invested no cash in the farm, lived there rent free, and in fact 
reaped the immediate benefits of Jurkovich's investment, is reason enough to 
deny Eric Tomlinson's request for damages on his counterclaim. There is little 
doubt that Jurkovich breached the assumption agreement when he refused to pay 
the mortgage, but it is equally clear that Eric Tomlinson suffered no damages as 
a result of that breach. The jury's decision to award him no damages is 
affirmed.

D. PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE 
OF FARM EQUIPMENT

[¶16]   In February of 1987, Jurkovich gave 
Eric Tomlinson written permission to sell the farm equipment. The equipment sold 
for $79,000.00 and Eric Tomlinson took $9,000.00 as proceeds relating to 
personal property, deposited $35,000.00 in an escrow account pending resolution 
of this action and placed the remaining $35,000.00 in his own account. Jurkovich 
is entitled to the money Eric Tomlinson deposited in the escrow account 
following the sale of the farm equipment. Jurkovich held a one-half interest in 
the farm and a one-half interest in the farm equipment in March of 1987 when the 
farm equipment was sold. Jurkovich is, therefore, entitled to one-half of the 
proceeds garnered from the sale of the farm equipment. Accordingly, on remand, 
the district court shall order Eric Tomlinson to release the funds held in the 
escrow account to Jurkovich.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶17]   The decision of the district court 
granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed. There was clear 
and convincing evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably 
conclude that Jurkovich was fraudulently induced into investing $30,807.00 in 
the farm. Jurkovich's argument that he is entitled to $124,000.00 in damages 
pursuant to a rescission theory is rejected as untimely. The jury's decision 
rejecting Eric Tomlinson's counterclaim is affirmed.

[¶18]   Affirmed in part, reversed in part 
and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.