Opinion ID: 895947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Trial, Insufficient Evidence

Text: [¶ 21] Reinke next argues the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. See N.D. R. Civ. P. 59(b)(6). Unlike a motion for judgment as a matter of law, in a motion for a new trial the district court may, within limits, weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. Okken, 325 N.W.2d at 269. [W]hen a motion for a new trial is made and the reason given in support of the motion is [ ] there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, the moving party is asking the trial court to decide whether or not the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Id. Unlike our review for judgment as a matter of law, on review of a motion for new trial, we do not apply the same standard as the district court and will not re-weigh the evidence on appeal. Cf. Id. We merely look to see whether the district court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in rendering its decision. Id. [¶ 22] A verdict is against the weight of the evidence when it is not supported by substantial evidence. Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank, 449 N.W.2d 804, 807 (N.D. 1989). Here, the district court concluded the verdict was supported by substantial evidence. We agree with this assessment. [¶ 23] In the trial, the Perry children offered the testimony of Dr. Stephan Podrygula, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Podrygula identified fifteen facts and applied those facts to each of the four elements of undue influence. Reinke attacks the testimony of Dr. Podrygula as not credible, conclusory, and uninformed. Reinke also criticizes the Perry children's case as coming mainly from Brannan and Perry, two interested parties. From the record, it is evident Reinke educated both judge and jury of Dr. Podrygula's possible failings. Reinke also had the opportunity to criticize the Perry's case. Reinke's concerns were aired and rejected. The rejection does not rise to the level of abuse of discretion by the district court. [¶ 24] The unusual factual circumstances in this case, where the communications from Reinke and Gertrude were recorded in notebooks, allowed the jurors and district court to look inside the relationship between Gertrude and Reinke. The notebooks provided more reliable evidence upon which the jurors and court could base their decisions. Even if we were to turn a blind eye to the testimony of Dr. Podrygula and the Perry children, some of the notebook discussions reveal an attempt to transfer Reinke's animosity toward the Perrys to Gertrude. To conclude Reinke's words overmastered the mind of a naive, vulnerable, aging person is not unreasonable. [¶ 25] The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Reinke's motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence.