Opinion ID: 1298670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err by granting metropolitan's motion for a new trial?

Text: Normally, an order granting a new trial will not be set aside on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion. Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241, 245, 367 P.2d 266, 269 (1962). One exception to this rule is when the trial court, in its order granting a new trial, does not specify with particularity the reason for granting the new trial, as Rule 59(m), Ariz. R. Civ. P., requires. When the trial court does not comply with Rule 59(m), the burden shifts and the party who made the motion for a new trial must convince the reviewing court that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial. Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 100 Ariz. 80, 83, 411 P.2d 809, 811 (1966). In granting Metropolitan's motion for a new trial, the trial judge stated: I find that there were errors that occurred during the trial that justify the granting of the motion for new trial.... Primarily I'm granting the motion for new trial because of errors in the jury instructions; primarily that of anticipatory repudiation. It appears that this issue did not become at issue until such time as the Defendants . .. took the witness stand and said, We did not withhold our consent. I think at that point the theory became an issue and the Plaintiff was entitled to jury instructions on that. So, with great reluctance, I grant the Plaintiff's motion for new trial. Rule 59(m) is satisfied when both parties and the appellate courts receive adequate notice of the grounds on which the trial court relied. Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159, 164, 579 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1978) ( quoted in Keller v. Keller, 137 Ariz. 447, 449, 671 P.2d 425, 427 (1983)). We believe the trial court's order from the bench was specified with the necessary degree of particularity to meet this test. [3] Therefore, our standard of review in determining whether to re-instate the jury verdict or to remand the matter for a new trial is whether the trial judge abused her discretion in granting Metropolitan's motion for a new trial. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting the motion for a new trial. See Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 112 Ariz. 385, 389, 542 P.2d 810, 814 (1975) (grant or denial of motion for new trial is within sound discretion of trial court, and reviewing court will not upset trial court's ruling thereon absent clear showing of abuse of discretion); Estabrook v. J.C. Penney Co., 105 Ariz. 302, 305, 464 P.2d 325, 328 (1970) (trial judge has considerable latitude in awarding a new trial, and except in cases where his broad discretion is clearly abused an appellate court will not overturn his action). We believe evidence existed which could support the giving of an anticipatory breach instruction and, therefore, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in granting a new trial.