Brown v. Estate of Stuckey

• Decision Date: 26 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. 90,197.,90,197.
• Citation: 749 So.2d 490
• Parties: Rupert B. BROWN, et ux., et al., Petitioners, v. The ESTATE OF A.P. STUCKEY, Sr., et al., Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

749 So.2d 490

Rupert B. BROWN, et ux., et al., Petitioners, v. The ESTATE OF A.P. STUCKEY, Sr., et al., Respondents.

No. 90,197.

Supreme Court of Florida.

August 26, 1999.

Rehearing Denied January 12, 2000.

Martin S. Page, Lake City, Florida, for Petitioners.

James C. Rinaman, Jr., Edward K. Cottrell, and Alan K. Ragan of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida, for Respondents.

OVERTON, Senior Justice.

We have for review Estate of Stuckey v. Brown, 695 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which reversed the trial judge's granting of a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We find that the district court's decision directly conflicts with Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959), and our subsequent decisions in Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1978); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); and E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825 (Fla.1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we conclude that the district court in this case erred in reversing the trial judge's order because it did not apply the broad discretion standard adopted in Cloud. Rather, the district court applied the substantial, competent evidence standard, which was rejected in Cloud. It is our desire in this opinion to clarify the principles that must be applied by the trial judge when considering a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the standard that must be applied by the appellate court on an appeal of the trial judge's decision to grant a new trial.

The relevant facts in this case reflect that, in 1981, Rupert and Lettie Brown entered into a partnership or joint venture agreement with Sarah and A.P. Stuckey for the operation of a thoroughbred horse farm in Suwannee County. Hostilities arose among the parties and, in 1989, the Stuckeys brought an action against the Browns for intentional interference with business relationships, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict for the Stuckeys, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. The Browns filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the jury had committed misconduct. The Browns did not file a motion for remittitur.¹ The trial judge granted the motion for new trial and explained in detail his reasons. The trial judge's order states as follows:

This matter was before the Court upon the motion of Defendants for a new trial and, as an adjunct thereto, the Court-ordered interview of certain of the jurors after certiorari proceedings to the District Court of Appeal, First District, affirmed this Court's granting of Defendant's motion seeking such interviews.

The Court has heard testimony of four of the seated jurors, three of whom deliberated and returned the verdict in this cause, concerning alleged misconduct by the Foreman of the jury during the trial. Contradictions appear in their testimony and that testimony, standing alone, does not convince the Court that the Foreman/juror committed perjury during his voir dire examination, although counsel may have been misled by his answer concerning his knowledge of the attorney for the Defendants.

That testimony, together with that of the Defendants and the allegations of their motion for new trial filed December 21, 1994, indicates that the Foreman/juror, during the trial, may have visited the farm which was the subject of partition in this action and where much of the other counts in Plaintiff's Complaint are alleged to have arisen. However, the testimony does not indicate that such act, if true, was used to influence the other jurors.

What their testimony does clearly indicate is that the jurors on this case either deliberately ignored or did not appreciate the instructions of this Court repeatedly given them over the course of this two week trial that they were not to discuss the case among themselves during recesses and that they were not to form or express any opinion about that case until the case had been given over to them for their deliberations and verdict. The Court finds from the more credible testimony received from the interviewed jurors that such discussions were an on-going circumstance during the course of the trial.

The trial of this multi-count and complex action consumed approximately two weeks. The witnesses were numerous, the exhibits literally covered volumes and the objections of counsel to various evidentiary matters were dependably recurring events. The Court has heard argument of counsel concerning the motion of Defendants for a new trial. The Court has also reviewed the specific findings and awards set forth in the verdict rendered by the jury.

Comparing all of the foregoing facets of this case and the evidence submitted, to the verdict rendered, this Court is compelled to conclude that the verdict is the product of a jury which was either (a) deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence, or (b) influenced by considerations outside the record; i.e., bias, prejudice; or (c) both.

The Court finds that, under the facts of this case which has been in litigation since early 1989, the damages awarded are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the instructions of law given the jury to guide it in its deliberations.

On Plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with business relationship, the compensatory damages awarded the Estate of A.P. Stuckey for loss of business profits from 1989 to October, 1994, (date of his death) of $253,500.00 is an example of an award which, when compared to prior earnings and "best-scenario" projected increases in the absence of such interference, simply is not sustainable by any reasonable view of the evidence. In like manner, the Court cannot reconcile the award to Mrs. Stuckey (widow of Mr. Stuckey and his joint partner in their business up to his death) of $130,500.00 on that same claim where the evidence was silent as to her personal expected profits in the business, absent the efforts of her husband.

On the claim for the Estate of A.P. Stuckey for damages for defamation (limited in time from 1989 through early October, 1994), the jury awarded $50,000.00 as compensation. However, no reasonable evidence was adduced to support such award other than that concerning "loss of business" which was indistinguishably intertwined with the claim for interference with business. There was not evidence as to loss or suffering resulting from defamation for that period of time that would reasonably equate to $50,000.00 and the award can be seen by this Court only as one meant to punish rather than to fairly compensate as instructed by this Court.

The Court similarly views the jury's award on the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The evidence on such claim was inseparable from that on the two claims discussed above. This Court finds that clearly the jury either misperceived the evidence or was improperly and unlawfully motivated in awarding such sums for a non-continuing tort. To the same effect was the jury's allocation of equity in the partition of lands of 65% in favor of Plaintiffs where the evidence reflected that the cash funds used to purchase the land and construct much of the improvements thereon flowed from the pockets of the Defendants.

These considerations have led the Court to the conclusion that justice requires the motion of Defendants for new trial be granted. Because of the scope of the excessiveness of the damages when compared to reasonable inferences from the weight of the evidence, the Court cannot but conclude that the jury's findings as to the issues of liability and special interrogatory were similarly tainted, requiring that new trial be granted as to all issues. Defendants have stated additional grounds in support of their motion for new trial, but in light of the result stated above, the Court has found it unnecessary to consider them at this time. They may be considered upon proper objection during the retrial of this cause.

The Stuckeys appealed the order granting the new trial and the First District Court of Appeal reversed. The district court rendered two opinions. In its first opinion, the district court stated:

Our review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have returned this verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A full recitation of the evidence or the specific facts would serve no purpose. We, therefore, find without further comment that it was inappropriate to grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Estate of Stuckey v. Brown, 688 So.2d 438, 439-40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(emphasis added). Recognizing that it applied an incorrect standard in determining whether the trial judge erred in ordering a new trial, the district court issued a second opinion, which reads:

In Miller v. Affleck, 632 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), we recognized the natural tension which exists between applying the abuse of discretion standard and restricting the trial court from usurping a jury's fact-finding responsibility by becoming a seventh juror with veto power. In Miller, we announced the correct test for reviewing a trial court's order granting a new trial based on the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence:

The general standard of review of an order granting a new trial is whether the trial court has abused its discretion. Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988). If an abuse of discretion has occurred, however, the appellate court will reverse the order granting a new trial. Lee v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel.

...