Opinion ID: 1894114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rejected Claims

Text: Plaintiff took nothing at trial on the claim for wrongful interference with advantageous business relations. Although the jury found liability against Robert, it nonetheless disposed of that claim in his favor by finding no damages had accrued to Theodore from that wrongful conduct. Since Theodore has not cross-appealed from the judgment that reflected that adverse verdict, that judgment has become final. To establish that Robert violated a confidential relationship with Theodore in the operation of the Rosenthal family enterprise, Theodore had to show the actual placing of trust and confidence in fact by [him] in [Robert] and a great disparity of position and influence between the parties to the relation. Ruebsamen v. Maddocks, 340 A.2d 31, 35 (Me.1975). Once a plaintiff establishes the existence of that relationship of trust and reliance by one party and dominance by the other, equity then raises a presumption of undue influence and casts upon [the dominant] party the burden ... to show affirmatively [in the particular transaction] ... entire fairness on his part and freedom of the other from undue influence. Id. at 36 (quoting Eldridge v. May, 129 Me. 112, 116, 150 A. 378, 379 (1930)). Because we find no evidence in the record that would allow the jury rationally to find as an initial matter that during the years immediately preceding the 1979 sale of his interest in the family enterprise, Theodore in fact had placed trust and reliance in his brother, we vacate the jury's findings that a confidential relationship existed and had been violated. See Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 982 (Me.1981). According to Theodore's own testimony, after he returned from Florida in June 1975 he found himself in constant conflict with his brother. Theodore stated that at that time [Robert] really all of a sudden became a completely different person than I had known before, and would stop me from doing anything. In the summer of 1975 the two had a very big argument resulting in Theodore's insistence that he run Bo-ed, Inc. and the Holiday Inn at Cooks Corner. In 1976 he hired a Boston lawyer to negotiate the family agreement that Theodore believed was necessary to lessen his brother's control of the businesses. In 1977 he began refusing to pay bills sent by his brother to Bo-ed, and hired a local lawyer who represented him through the completion of the March 1979 sale with respect to differences [Theodore] had in his business relationship with other members of his family. Extensive testimony therefore clearly established both that during the four years leading up to the disputed sale of Theodore's interests in the family businesses he and his brother were almost constantly in disagreement over the family business policies, and also that at least since 1977 Theodore was represented by counsel in his negotiations with other members of the family. On such evidence a jury could not rationally find that a confidential relationship existed between Theodore and Robert at any time relevant to the occurrences disputed in this case. Accordingly, on that claim of Theodore, Robert is entitled to judgment.