Estate of Stuckey v. Brown, 96-150

• Decision Date: 28 February 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-150,96-150
• Citation: 688 So.2d 438
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D564 The Estate of A.P. STUCKEY, Sr., and Sarah Stuckey, Appellants, v. Rupert B. BROWN and Lettie Nell Brown, his wife, and V. Lee Potter, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 438

688 So.2d 438

22 Fla. L. Weekly D564

The Estate of A.P. STUCKEY, Sr., and Sarah Stuckey, Appellants, v. Rupert B. BROWN and Lettie Nell Brown, his wife, and V. Lee Potter, Appellees.

No. 96-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Feb. 28, 1997.

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

Martin S. Page, Lake City, for appellees.

WOLF, Judge.

Appellants, The Estate of A.P. Stuckey, Sr., and Sarah Stuckey, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from a final order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of appellants in an action for defamation, intentional interference with a business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We determine that the jury award of damages was neither necessarily duplicative nor against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the alleged jury misconduct which took place was not so substantial as to require the granting of a new trial. See Miller v. Affleck, 632 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We, therefore, reverse.

The alleged tortious acts of the defendants/appellees arose out of a partnership between appellants and appellees for operation of a large thoroughbred horse farm in Suwannee County. The alleged misconduct occurred after the business relationship soured. After a trial was held, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Browns filed a motion for new trial asserting, among other things, that the verdict was the product of jury bias, prejudice, sympathy or other matters outside the record, and further alleged that one of the jurors visited the horse farm during the trial, contrary to the court's instructions. The Browns also filed a motion for an order permitting jury interviews pursuant to rule 1.431(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting various grounds to indicate that the Browns were deprived of a fair and impartial trial due to jury misconduct. The trial court held a hearing on that motion, and eventually granted the Browns' motion for an order permitting jury interviews, finding that it appeared that one of the jurors may have lied when he told the court that he did not know the parties or their attorney, and that it appeared that the jurors discussed the case prior to the close of the evidence.

On December 11, 1995, following the interview of jurors in regard to the allegations of misconduct, and upon review of the evidence submitted in the case in light of the verdict rendered, the court entered its order concluding 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 or prejudice; or (c) both." The court also stated that it was not convinced that the foreman committed perjury during voir dire, and that...