Coran v. Keller, 87-335
| Decision Date | 02 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-335,87-335 |
| Citation | 295 Ark. 308,748 S.W.2d 349 |
| Parties | Lenard CORAN and Bertha L. Coran, Appellants, v. Gary KELLER and wife, Vicky Keller, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Herbert C. Rule, III and Stephen N. Joiner, Little Rock, for appellants.
Charles E. Clawson, Jr., Conway, for appellees.
The defendants, Lenard and Bertha Coran, constructed and sold a house to the plaintiffs, Gary and Vicky Keller, for $34,500.00. The plaintiffs moved into their home and soon discovered the septic tank did not function properly, that sewage backed into the house, that soap suds from the washing machine seeped into the bathroom, that sewage and other effluence stood in the backyard, and that water would not percolate in the ground around the house. The defendants made various attempts to correct the problems, but all were unsuccessful. Plaintiffs filed suit in circuit court for breach of warranty asking $37,500.00 damages. The defendants answered and admitted that the house had defects, but denied that the defects were the fault of the defendants. At trial, the jury returned a verdict as follows: (The italicized portions of the above were handwritten.) After hearing the verdict, neither party asked that the jury be polled nor questioned the verdict, and the jury was discharged. Eleven days later the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to modify the verdict. At the hearing on the motion the defendants asked the court to either enter a judgment on the verdict or else grant a new trial. The trial court ruled:
I didn't make any inquiry of the jury, but two of them were in my office a week or two after this trial and said, "What did you think about our verdict in the"--what's this--"the Keller-Coran case?" I said, "Well, I think y'all made a big mistake in putting that stipulation on it." They said, "Now, Judge, if you had just sent us back into the jury room, we were prepared to remove that stipulation." But, nobody asked for 'em to be sent back in and I didn't send 'em back in. So, now, both sides come to me and want to correct the verdict rendered by the jury.
So, my holding is going to be that the jury had no right to write any stipulation on this verdict form, that they went beyond their province, they went beyond the instructions of the Court, and I'm going to correct the verdict by removing the stipulation and leaving part of the verdict, "We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, Gary Keller and wife, Vicky Keller, and fix their damages at a sum of thirty-four thousand five hundred dollars," as the verdict in this case, and see if the higher court will affirm or reverse. I know it's going to be a very interesting case for them to decide. It was a very interesting case to hear, and I don't really want to have to hear it again. It may be remanded down here for me to hear again, but that's the only way I'm going to hear it again. I'm not going to grant a new trial. I'm going to conform the verdict to what I consider it should have been, had the jury followed the instructions of the Court, which they apparently did not. They decided, on their own, to make an equity case out of it and try to do some kind of an equity in the matter, which was beyond their province.
The trial court then entered a judgment striking the handwritten stipulation as surplusage. The defendants appeal. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
In Sanson v. Pullum, 273 Ark. 325, 329, 619 S.W.2d 641, 644 (1981), we said:
Uniform Evidence Rule 606(b) states plainly that a juror may not testify as to the effect of anything upon his mind as influencing him to assent to the verdict, nor may his affidavit be received concerning a matter about which he is precluded from testifying. We take this opportunity to state unequivocally, for the guidance of the bar, that in our opinion it is improper for a lawyer to interview jurors after a trial in an effort to obtain such inadmissible affidavits to impeach their own verdict.
Similarly, a trial judge, before ruling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCuen v. Harris
...neither party has raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, we can investigate such jurisdiction on our own. Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988). We hold that jurisdiction exists in chancery court in this Article 19, § 22 of the Arkansas Constitution provides the pro......
-
J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank
...the question of subject matter jurisdiction in this appeal, it is an issue we have a duty to raise on our own. See Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988); Arkansas S. & L. v. Corning, 252 Ark. 264, 478 S.W.2d 431 In the opening paragraphs of Reynolds' argument to this Court, i......
-
Estate of Puddy v. Gillam
...in court in the forum it selected and is not entitled to a second chance. I would decide the case on the merits. 1 See Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988).2 Two recent examples are Gorchik v. Gorchik, 10 Ark.App. 331, 663 S.W.2d 941 (1984), overruled in Liles v. Liles, 289 ......
-
Waste Management of Ark v. Roll off Service
...that a trial court should not make substantive corrections to a jury verdict after the jury has been discharged. See Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988). Additionally, several Arkansas cases have held that the time to correct an irregularity or inconsistency in a jury verdi......