Opinion ID: 895947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Trial, Newly Discovered Evidence

Text: [¶ 26] Finally, Reinke argues the district court abused its discretion in denying Reinke's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See N.D. R. Civ. P. 59(b)(4). During the trial, Reinke and Bob Mahoney were alleged to be the beneficiaries of over one hundred thousand dollars in nonprobate transfers. Reinke argues during the trial, she forgot she had transferred the nonprobate assets into the estate. However, Reinke now remembers and has bank records proving she made the transfer into the estate account prior to the time of trial. The district court concluded, I do not consider Reinke and [Bob] Mahoney not knowing what they had done, or not remembering what they had done, or not going to a local bank to find out what they had done when the question arose during the trial having now been remedied to be newly discovered evidence. [¶ 27] Before a new trial is granted, the following requirements must be met: (1) the evidence must have been discovered following trial; (2) the movant must have exercised due diligence in discovering the evidence; (3) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be material and admissible; and (5) the evidence must be such that a new trial would probably produce a different result. Keyes v. Amundson, 391 N.W.2d 602, 605 (N.D. 1986) (internal citations omitted). While we reach no conclusion regarding the legal effect of the transfer into the estate, we agree with the district court, the bank records are not newly discovered evidence. [¶ 28] Although the money reported in the bank records was at issue during the trial, their production after trial is not newly discovered evidence when they were easily discoverable by Reinke before the trial commenced. As this Court said in Baird v. Kensal Light & Power Co., 63 N.D. 88, 246 N.W. 279, 283 (1932), [i]t is not enough to present a showing [] he did not know, ... the materiality of the evidence. It is the evidence itself, and not merely its materiality which must appear to have been newly discovered. Id. (Citation and quotation omitted). See also 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 101 (1950) (stating [i]n order to warrant a new trial it must appear [ ][the] evidence is in fact newly discovered, and not merely the importance of it....). Moreover, the bank records, while possibly material, are not strong enough evidence to produce a different result in a new trial. Keyes, 391 N.W.2d at 605 (noting a new trial should be granted if the unsuccessful party discovers new evidence after the trial, which he could not have diligently discovered and produced at trial, and the evidence is relevant, material, and strong enough to probably produce a different result in a new trial). [¶ 29] In preparing for trial, a party must marshal all of the available evidence through discovery proceedings. Failure to do so will not be forgiven in a motion for new trial. Cf. Erdahl v. Hegg, 110 N.W.2d 355 (N.D.1961) (reversing a district courts granting of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the movant knew the identity of an available witness having knowledge of relevant facts which the witness refused to disclose until after trial and where the facts were available through discovery). [¶ 30] We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reinke's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.