Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00205/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00205-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald M. Hall; Pamela J. Hall, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Elvira J. Manschot, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0205-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion to alternatively amend the jury verdict, grant

a new trial, or enter judgment as a matter of law (doc. 127), defendants’ response (doc. 128),

and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 130). 

The Halls sued the Manschots for breach of contract related to the purchase of a

residence. They alleged that the Manschots failed to inform them of water problems at the

property and breached a written guarantee to repair any water problems that arose after

closing. They presented evidence that they had incurred a total of $153,017.38 to fix the

water problems and remediate the damage. The jury found the Manschots liable for breach

of contract and awarded the Halls $20,000.00 in damages. Arguing that their evidence of

damages was uncontested at trial, the Halls now move to amend the jury verdict on the

ground that the evidence did not support the award, grant a new trial on the issue of damages

only, or enter judgment as a matter of law in the full amount of their claimed damages. 

Case 2:06-cv-00205-FJM Document 131 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Defendants contend that while they may not have challenged the specific amounts that

plaintiffs incurred in replacing the drainage system or remediating mold and water damage,

they did dispute whether these expenses were necessarily incurred, and whether some of the

damage was caused by plaintiffs’ own conduct, or otherwise did not result from defendants’

breach. For example, defendants presented evidence at trial that plaintiffs failed to maintain

the drainage system by allowing the sump pump to stop functioning, causing the drainage

system to become clogged. Defendants further presented evidence that when the sump pump

was functioning properly, water seepage was alleviated. Evidence was also presented that

given the unusually heavy rainfall of 2004, flooding may have occurred even with a properly

designed and constructed drainage system. 

The amount of an award for damages is “a question peculiarly within the province of

the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the

result of passion and prejudice.” Larriva v. Widmer, 101 Ariz. 1, 7, 415 P.2d 424, 430

(1966). “[W]hen there is a conflict in the evidence, the trial judge should not interfere with

what is peculiarly the jury’s function . . . . [I]f the verdict is supported by adequate evidence,

it will not be disturbed.” Creamer v. Troiano, 108 Ariz. 573, 576-77, 503 P.2d 794, 797-98

(1972).

Here, the jury was instructed to award those damages “proved by the evidence to have

resulted naturally and directly from the breach of contract” (doc. 121 at 21). The amount of

damages attributable to the breach of contract was in dispute. Accordingly, the jury was free

to accept or reject all or a portion of the various items of expense that the plaintiffs offered

as damages. See Warren Co. v. Hanson, 17 Ariz. 252, 259, 150 P. 238, 240 (1915) (measure

of damages in breach of contract case is the amount of damage “which actually results from

the breach”). The jury could have reasonably concluded from the evidence presented at trial

that a portion of the expense in replacing the drainage system and remediating damage was

not fairly attributable to defendants’ breach. As such, the amount to be awarded was

properly left to the jury’s sole discretion, and additur is inappropriate. 

Case 2:06-cv-00205-FJM Document 131 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion to amend the jury verdict, grant a

new trial, or enter judgment as a matter of law (doc. 127). 

DATED this 29th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00205-FJM Document 131 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3