Opinion ID: 4538057
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gleason’s Profits

Text: On appeal, Gleason argues that she “paid another agent for the procurement of the sale,” and that the jury was mistaken in failing to consider this a deductible expense. Appellants’ Br. at 15. We are satisfied that the district court did not err in denying her motion for a new trial or remittitur on this basis. At trial, Gleason offered only her testimony that her $14,440.50 commission was “divided between four people”: RE/MAX Executives (of which she was a coowner, R. 215 (Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 381) (Page ID #3026)), RE/MAX International (the franchising company), Heather Chase (another agent with whom she shared commissions), and herself. Id. at 379 (Page ID #3024). Although she provided detailed explanations on the stand for how and why she shared her commission with these other parties, she failed to explain why she had not provided any written documentation of these financial exchanges, after confirming that such documentation existed. Id. at 404–05 (Page ID #3049–50) (“Q: You never did provide any written documentation that you just told me exists, the paper trail, the checks, the statements. None of that was ever produced to us in discovery, was it? A: I am not sure.”). As the district court reminded the jury before deliberations, Gleason “failed to supply documents requested by the plaintiff in th[is] regard,” and the district court instructed them not to consider her testimony regarding her expenses. R. 216 (Trial Tr. Vol. 4 at 150) (Page ID #3244). Furthermore, hers is the only name to appear on the contract for the sale of the house. See Pl.’s App’x, Trial Ex. 8. Even if the jury ignored the district court’s instructions and considered Gleason’s testimony regarding her deductions, she provided no documentary evidence that any portion of the $14,440.50 was distributed to or 19 No. 19-5491, Singletary Constr., LLC v. Reda Home Builders, Inc. et al. retained by another party. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Gleason’s motion for new trial or remittitur on this issue.