Opinion ID: 1952977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Count 3 (Ballards Claim)

Text: This claim focuses on the alleged 1974 oral promise that Paul made to Paula that Ballards would be hers if she came to manage the business during the season each year. In 1976, Paula began managing Ballards and continued to do so each season until 1987. The jury found that Paul's oral promise constituted a legally enforceable contract to convey his interest in Ballards to Paula at his death. Marion filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, contending that plaintiffs failed to prove the irrevocable will contract by clear and convincing evidence and that both G.L. 1956 § 6A-1-206, applicable through Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and § 9-1-4 prohibited such an oral contract. The trial justice rejected both arguments, finding that plaintiffs proved their case by clear and convincing evidence and that the statute of frauds from the UCC did not apply. [7] At the close of plaintiffs' case, at the close of all the evidence and following the verdict, Marion moved for judgment as a matter of law on this count. She also filed a motion for a new trial after the verdict. The standard of review for a decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law applies here as well. The new trial standard is articulated below. It is well settled that the trial justice acts as a `superjuror' in considering a motion for a new trial. Rezendes v. Beaudette, 797 A.2d 474, 477 (R.I.2002) (quoting English v. Green, 787 A.2d 1146, 1149 (R.I.2001)). If the trial justice: reviews the evidence, comments on the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and exerciseshis    independent judgment, his    determination either granting or denying a motion for new trial will not be disturbed unless he    has overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. Id. at 478 (quoting English, 787 A.2d at 1149). If the trial justice determines that the evidence is evenly balanced or that reasonable minds could differ on the verdict, he should not disturb the jury's decision. Id. (citing Perkins v. City of Providence, 782 A.2d 655, 656 (R.I.2001)). If, however, the verdict fails to do justice because it is against the weight of the evidence, the trial justice should grant the motion. See id. A