Opinion ID: 196032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Conversion and Unjust Enrichment Verdicts

Text: 14 The jury initially found Rockett liable on the conversion and unjust enrichment counts, but found that Rockett & Sons was not liable on those counts. The jury awarded Winter $15,000 but apportioned that award equally between Rockett and Rockett & Sons. The district court properly found that the verdict and the apportionment of damages were inconsistent. Accordingly, the court explained the inconsistency to the jury and asked them to resolve it with reference to the jury instructions. The court then asked them to return to deliberate further. Counsel for appellants did not object to the court's supplemental instructions. 15 In its subsequent verdict, the jury found that both Rockett and Rockett & Sons had converted Winter's lobsters and/or lobster crates and that both had been unjustly enriched. The jury found that Winter suffered damages of $15,000 as a result of this conduct, but that no portion of that $15,000 was a result of Rockett & Sons' conduct alone. The court entered judgment in the amount of $15,000 against Rockett and Rockett & Sons, jointly and severally. 16 Appellants maintain that the jury's finding that both appellants had converted Winter's property, but that none of Winter's damages were caused by Rockett & Sons' conduct alone, shows the jury was confused regarding the charge of conversion and is otherwise unreasonable, inconsistent, against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the judge's instructions on the law. As explained above, by not moving for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, appellants have waived their right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We therefore address only the question of whether the verdict was inconsistent or contrary to the judge's instructions. 17 The verdict was not inconsistent under Maine law. It was stipulated at trial that Rockett was acting as an agent of Rockett & Sons. Under Maine law, the jury could conclude that Rockett converted the lobsters and/or crates and that he was acting within the scope of his employment with Rockett & Sons. See McLain v. Training & Dev. Corp., 572 A.2d 494, 497-98 (Me. 1990). The jury could determine that the damages were caused by Rockett's conduct alone, but he was acting as an agent for Rockett & Sons at the time. The jury could therefore conclude that Rockett and Rockett & Sons were jointly and severally liable for the $15,000 in damages, even though the damages were not the result of Rockett & Sons' conduct alone. 18 Nor was the verdict contrary to the judge's instructions. With respect to the claim for conversion, the court instructed the jury as follows: 19 The Co-op also claims that Rockett & Sons and Brian Rockett converted its property, namely, its lobsters and 100 wooden crates. To prove conversion, the Co-op must establish that Rockett & Sons have wrongfully taken or retained property belonging to the Co-op. 20 The Co-op need not prove that Rockett & Sons and Brian Rockett knew or intended to convert the Co-op's property, only that they came to have custody of property belonging to the Co-op when they had no right to the property. 21 Of course, if you find that Rockett & Sons was entitled to possession of the lobsters under the contract, then neither it nor Brian Rockett is liable for conversion of the lobsters. If, however, you determine that Rockett & Sons was not entitled to possession of the lobsters under the contract due to its fraud in procuring delivery of the lobsters, then you may find that Rockett & Sons and Brian Rockett are liable for conversion of the lobsters. 22 Appellants argue that this instruction only allows a finding of conversion if the jury finds fraud in the procuring of the lobsters, and that, since the jury found no fraud, the verdict was inconsistent. The court instructed the jury to consider all of the instructions together, and not to single out any one instruction. The conversion instruction explained that Winter need not prove that Rockett & Sons and Rockett knew or intended to convert Winter's property, only that they came to have possession of that property when they had no right to it. The mention of fraud merely indicates that, in addition, if they had possession of Winter's property through fraud, that would suffice for conversion. We find no inconsistency in the verdict.