Court Opinion

ID: 2964451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:48.897991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:57.524347
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-1227

                                    MARYANN HALL,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 LAWRENCE ALAN HALL,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Anthony M. Fredella, with whom Fredella & Wheeler was on brief
             ___________________            __________________
        for appellant.
             Seth M. Kalberg for appellee.
             _______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                   November 6, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.   Appellant Maryann Hall,  former spouse of
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          defendant-appellee Lawrence  Hall, appeals from a  district court

          judgment  dismissing  her  diversity  suit for  breach  of  their

          agreement  for  an equal  division  of any  remaining  capital in

          Merlin Machinery, a Massachusetts corporation in which each owned

          shares.1  Maryann claims  that the adverse jury verdict  on which

          the  district court based its  judgment is against  the weight of

          the evidence and  that the court erred in denying  her motion for

          new trial.2  We affirm.

                    Maryann's timeous  motion for  new trial under  Fed. R.

          Civ.  P. 59(b)  requires that  we review  the sufficiency  of the

          evidence, see  Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996  F.2d 425, 426-27
                    ___  _________    ______________

          (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 993 (1993), but only for abuse
                      ____  ______

          of  discretion.  Id.  at 427.   Following  careful review  of the
                           __

          entire  record, we  are satisfied  that the district  court acted

          well  within its broad discretion  in denying the  motion for new

          trial.  We add only these brief comments.  

                    The district court submitted two questions to the jury.

          The  first  inquired  whether  Maryann had  proven  that  capital

          remained  or should have remained  in Merlin Machinery  as of the

                              
          ____________________

               1The  evidence is  viewed,  and every  reasonable  inference
          drawn, in the light most favorable to the verdict.  J.D.  Havinga
                                                              _____________
          v. Crowley Towing and Transp.  Co., 24 F.3d 1480, 1483  (1st Cir.
             _______________________________
          1994).

               2As Maryann filed no motion for judgment as a matter of law,
          see Fed. R.  Civ. P. 50(a), (b), we cannot  entertain the Rule 50
          ___
          claim.   Hammond v.  T.J. Litle &  Co., Inc., 82  F.3d 1166, 1171
                   _______     _______________________
          (1st Cir. 1996).

                                          2

          agreed settlement date.3  The jury responded in the negative.  

                    Unlike Larry, Maryann presented  no expert testimony on

          this accounting question.   Moreover, although Maryann  presented

          other  evidence which, if credited by the jury, may have sufficed

          to demonstrate undistributed capital in the corporation,  nothing

          in  the  record suggests  that the  jury  need have  accepted her

          evidence   over  the   competing  evidence   offered   by  Larry.

          Consequently, we must credit Larry's version, see J.D. Havinga v.
                                                        ___ ____________

          Crowley  Towing and  Transp. Co.,  24 F.3d  1480, 1483  (1st Cir.
          ________________________________

          1994).  Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.  
                                                              ________

                              
          ____________________

               3We do not reach the second question.

                                          3