Opinion ID: 1952977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: Marion filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiffs' case arguing that plaintiffs failed to produce enough evidence on the existence of the agreement because the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule prevent the evidence of the oral agreement from being considered. Therefore, Marion asserted, there was no evidence that Paul ever agreed to share the net proceeds. Marion filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiffs case, at the close of all evidence, and she renewed it after the jury returned its verdict against her. The trial justice denied the mall. She avers that the trial justice erred in denying those motions. Specifically, she asserts that he erred in finding that (1) the statute of frauds did not apply to an agreement to divide the proceeds of the development or sale of real property in Rhode Island, and (2) the agreement was not subject to the parol evidence rule. In reviewing a decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we, like the trial justice, examine: the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draw from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party.    If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for [judgment as a matter of law] must be denied, and the issues must be submitted to the jury for determination. Marketing Design Source, Inc. v. Pranda North America, Inc., 799 A.2d 267, 271 (R.I. 2002) (quoting Martinelli v. Hopkins, 787 A.2d 1158, 1165, (R.I.2001)). When there are no relevant factual issues and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the trial justice should grant the motion and dismiss the complaint. Id. at 271-72 (quoting Swerdlick v. Koch, 721 A.2d 849, 856 (R.I.1998)). The parties do not contest the existence of an oral agreement; in fact Marion acknowledged the existence of the oral agreement. Therefore, in the context of our standard of review, there are no factual issues to resolve. Rather, the outstanding issues relate to the trial justice's applications of law. Those issues involve the trial justice's (1) determination that the Ocean View agreement between Paul and plaintiffs was a partnership or joint venture agreement, thereby bypassing the statute of frauds, and (2) his ruling that the agreement was not subject to the parole evidence rule. 1