Opinion ID: 2561825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Three Way's claimed money damages?

Text: [¶28] This issue, raised by Burton, is the flip side of the third issue, which was raised by Three Way. See supra ¶¶ 2, 18-20. Prior to trial, Burton filed a two-part motion in limine . Burton sought to exclude evidence, first, of any alleged promise by Burton to subdivide and improve the 7.81 acre parcel, and second, of the monetary value of Three Way's services. The district court granted the motion as to the 7.81 acre parcel. That ruling was the subject of the third issue. See supra ¶¶ 2, 18-20. The district court denied the motion, however, as to the monetary value of Three Way's services. That is the issue, part of Burton's cross-appeal, that we now address. [¶29] Because this is an issue involving the admission of evidence, the question once again is whether the district court abused its discretion. Burton contends that, inasmuch as the contract provided for compensation only in the form of a land transfer, and not in the form of a money payment, the value of Three Way's services was not relevant. Three Way responds that, because the issue of unjust enrichment remained on the table, it was reasonable for the district court to allow evidence as to the value of its services, and to get the jury's opinion as to that value. [¶30] Succinctly stated, Burton's argument is that evidence of money amounts that Three Way had not been paid for work it performed prejudiced the jury against Burton, and resulted in the jury's conclusion that Burton, rather than Three Way, breached the contract. We conclude that Burton has not proven such prejudice. It is true that the jury found that Burton, not Three Way, breached the contract. But the evidence was uncontroverted that Burton had not conveyed to Three Way the 7.81 acre parcel, which was its contract obligation. To the contrary, there was considerable evidence that Three Way had not breached the contract, including, as noted above, that the groundwater problem was a patent defect, rather than a latent subsurface defect known only to Three Way, and that Burton, not Three Way, provided the plans and specifications that failed to deal with the groundwater problem. See supra ¶ 27. In the context of all the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the jury's decision as to breach was not swayed by the monetary evidence. We give considerable deference to the district court's evidentiary rulings, reversing only if the district court could not reasonably conclude as it did, and only if there is a reasonable probability that, absent an erroneous ruling, the verdict might have been different. Schmid v. Schmid , 2007 WY 148, ¶ 10, 166 P.3d 1285, 1288 (Wyo. 2007); McGhee v. Rork , 978 P.2d 577, 579 (Wyo. 1999). Burton has not shown either that the district court's ruling was erroneous under the circumstances, or that the necessary prejudice resulted from such ruling.