Opinion ID: 2614170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the jury verdict on count ii

Text: When the jury returned its verdict on Count II, defendants Kimbrough and Corey filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. Listed among the grounds were that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff failed to support a claim upon which relief could be had and that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. This court finds defendants' grounds without merit and affirms the action of the trial court. The jury was properly instructed by the trial court as to all the elements that must be proven by State Savings in an action for fraud. The jury verdict is fully supported by all the documents that were entered in evidence, including those that constituted the mortgaging agreements. In addition there is the testimony of all parties involved, including the individual defendants and the president of the contracting company. More specifically, the jury had the testimony of State Savings' representative to the effect that among other things he relied on the $761,500.00 construction contract as represented to him in making the mortgage loan. There was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. The trial court is thus affirmed in denying defendants' motion for the same reasons cited in upholding the jury verdict on Count I.