Byrd v. Bentley
Decision Date | 23 August 2002 |
Citation | 850 So.2d 232 |
Parties | Wood BYRD, and Bacadam, Inc. v. Mark BENTLEY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert Hayes of Hayes & Swinford, Birmingham; and Sterling L. DeRamus, Birmingham, for appellants.
Charles A. Dauphin of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, for appellee.
Wood Byrd, and Bacadam, Inc. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "the defendants"), appeal from the trial court's judgment on a $1,350,000 jury verdict in favor of Mark Bentley. We affirm.
On March 9, 1999, Bentley sued the defendants seeking to recover damages on claims of fraud and breach of contract. Bentley, who had been employed as manager of Bacadam, which was owned by Byrd, alleged that an oral contract of employment existed between him and the defendants in which he was to receive an 8 percent commission from his sales1 and a 30 percent ownership interest in Bacadam in the event that he met certain goals in increasing Bacadam's business. He also asserted that the parties had agreed that, in order to expand Bacadam's business, he would receive a 50 percent ownership interest in any company he located for Bacadam to purchase, and that he had arranged for the purchase by Bacadam of another company, Reach Advertising. Bentley further alleged that Byrd sold all the assets of Bacadam and purchased Reach Advertising, but that Bentley never received an ownership interest in Bacadam or Reach Advertising.
On December 30, 1999, the defendants filed an answer denying Bentley's claims and asserting counterclaims alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Alabama Trade Secrets Act, § 8-27-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, based upon their allegations that Bentley had not devoted his full attention to Bacadam as agreed and that he had engaged in business in competition with Bacadam. After the completion of discovery, a jury trial began on August 6, 2001. On August 7, 2001, at the close of Bentley's case-in-chief, the defendants filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, with a supporting memorandum. The trial court took the defendants' motion under advisement and allowed the defendants to present their case. At the close of the defendants' case, Bentley filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law in regard to the defendants' counterclaims; the trial court granted that motion. The defendants also renewed their motion for a judgment as a matter of law, and the trial court denied it as to Bentley's breach-of-contract claim but reserved ruling on it as to Bentley's fraud claim. Following Bentley's presentation of rebuttal testimony, he voluntarily dismissed his fraud claim. Thus, the only claim presented to the jury was Bentley's breach-of-contract claim. On August 9, 2001, the jury returned the following verdict:
"We, the jury, find in favor of Plaintiff, Mark Bentley, and against the Defendants, Wood Byrd and Bacadam, Inc., and assess the Plaintiff's damages at One Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($1,350,000.00)."
On that same day, the trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
On September 5, 2001, the defendants renewed their motion for a judgment as a matter of law, and also filed, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial; Bentley filed a response in opposition on September 24, 2001. On September 28, 2001, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of their postjudgment motion; Bentley filed a supplemental response on October 10, 2001. On October 22, 2001, the trial court entered an order that stated, in pertinent part:
On November 28, 2001, the defendants filed a notice of appeal.
The record shows that at trial, Bentley testified that the agreement between him and the defendants was that, in exchange for his increasing Bacadam's profits, he would receive a 30 percent ownership interest in the company, the value of which was to be determined as of the date he began work for Bacadam and was to be paid for by the increased profits he generated. He further testified that when he began work, Bacadam was receiving monthly revenues of $35,000-$36,000 and that Byrd set a goal for Bentley to increase that amount to $70,000 per month. Bentley stated that the $70,000 goal was reached, and in some months even surpassed.
Bentley's testimony regarding his employment agreement with the defendants was supported by the testimony of Dwight Jennings. Jennings was Bentley's former employer and an acquaintance of Byrd's. Jennings testified that Byrd had telephoned him in an effort to find someone to hire as manager of Bacadam. Jennings recommended Bentley and arranged a meeting between them, but told Byrd that Bentley would most likely require an ownership interest as part of his compensation for employment. Jennings further testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc.
...of other jurisdictions under similar circumstances. See McCoy v. State, 80 P.3d 751, 752 (Alaska Ct.App.2002) (citing Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232, 235 (Ala. 2002) (discussing unpublished federal district courts relied on by defendant)); Waskel v. Guar. Nat'l Corp., 23 P.3d 1214, 1220 (Co......
-
Johnny Ray Sports, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank
...Sportswear Co. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir.1989) (referencing New York's version of the UCC). Cf. Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232 (Ala.2002) (assuming that a contract providing an option for the purchase of securities was to be treated the same as a contract for the pre......
-
McGough v. G & a, Inc.
... ... R. Evid; see also Rule ... 999 So.2d 908 ... 901(b)(1), Ala. R. Evid., and Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232 (Ala.2002) (finding witness properly authenticated tape recording and transcription of tape recording by affirming that ... ...
-
Hess v. Market Inv. Co., LLC
...the Statute of Frauds despite its not being a "sale" would violate such principles. In support of this approach, Hess cites Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232 (Ala.2002). In Byrd, the defendants and Bentley orally agreed that if Bentley met certain business goals, he would be compensated with a......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...Circuit: U.S. ex rel. El-Amin v. George Washington University, 522 F. Supp.2d 135 (D.D.C. 2007). State Courts: Alabama: Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232 (Ala. 2002). Connecticut: Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn. App. 447, 802 A.2d 887 (2002). Louisiana: Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc., 812 So.......
-
Chapter 3
...Circuit: U.S. ex rel. El-Amin v. George Washington University, 522 F. Supp.2d 135 (D.D.C. 2007). State Courts: Alabama: Byrd v. Bentley, 850 So.2d 232 (Ala. 2002). Connecticut: Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn. App. 447, 802 A.2d 887 (2002). Louisiana: Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc., 812 So.......
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...So. 2d 152 (Ala. 2002)($300,000); Hornady Truck Line, Inc. v. Meadows, 847 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 2002)($6.25 million); Byrd, Inc. v. Bentley, 850 So. 2d 232 (Ala. 2002)($1.35 million).22. Jury verdicts reversed in 2002 were: Lincoln Log Home Enter., Inc. v. Autrey, 836 So. 2d 804 (Ala. 2002)($50......