Ferrell v. Cox

• Decision Date: 07 December 1992
• Citation: 617 A.2d 1003
• Parties: Milton FERRELL, Jr. v. David COX.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1003

617 A.2d 1003

Milton FERRELL, Jr. v. David COX.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued June 3, 1992.

Decided Dec. 7, 1992.

Jack H. Simmons, Valerie Stanfill (orally), Berman & Simmons, Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Paul W. Chaiken (orally), Brett D. Baber, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

COLLINS, Justice.

David Cox appeals from a judgment, entered in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Alexander, J.) after a jury trial, in favor of Milton Ferrell on Ferrell's claims of fraud and misrepresentation. On appeal, Cox claims that Ferrell failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation and failed to show that Cox's actions resulted in damage to Ferrell's property. Cox also contests several evidentiary rulings and the imposition of punitive damages. We affirm the judgment.

The evidence at trial was contradictory, but the jury could have found the following facts: In 1980, Ferrell, a Florida criminal trial lawyer, became the owner of ocean front property situated at the base of Cat Cove peninsula in Stonington. He received the property in return for defending its former owner, a Mr. Booth, in a criminal case. Over the next four years he spent a substantial amount of money improving the property.

Ferrell's property abutted land owned by Cox. Ferrell's attorney, Emily Watson, owned land out on the peninsula beyond the Ferrell property. The lots on the peninsula were without power and the utility company did not have an easement with which it could access those lots or Cox's property with telephone or power lines.

In May of 1986, Watson phoned Ferrell and told him she had a client who was purchasing a lot out on the peninsula. She told him her client wanted to know if any easements existed that could be used to provide power to the property. Ferrell expressed concern about the development of the peninsula and told Watson that he would discuss it with her when he returned to Maine. They met in August of 1986 and Ferrell told Watson that he did not want the peninsula developed but that he would be willing to grant her a utility easement so long as it was only for her own private use.

A few weeks later, Cox, an active judge of the Maine District Court, visited Ferrell and advised him that Cox's health was forcing his retirement. Cox stated that although he and his wife hoped to move into their cottage adjoining Ferrell's property, they could not do so because the cottage was without power and telephone lines. Cox asked Ferrell for an easement across a portion of Ferrell's property to provide these utilities.

Shortly thereafter, Cox returned to Ferrell's home and the two men walked along the proposed path of the easement to Cox's cottage. Ferrell spoke with Cox and his wife about the easement and the Coxes once again maintained that they opposed further development in the area. They agreed that Cox would draw up a deed for the easement and forward it to Ferrell in Florida.

Ferrell called Watson when he got back to Florida. He told her he had granted the Coxes a limited utility easement and that he would like her to review the papers regarding the easement when they arrived. When the deed arrived, Ferrell read it and then called Cox and Watson because the deed's language seemed to be broader than necessary. While the cover letter stated that the easement was intended to provide power to Cox's cottage, the deed contained no language restricting the use of the easement. Cox told him the power company required the language and that it was standard practice. Ferrell sent Watson a copy of the deed and she confirmed what Cox had told him. Sometime in October 1986, Ferrell signed the deed and returned it to Cox. In March of 1987, Cox sent Ferrell a second deed to replace the first one that Cox had lost and another deed that conveyed an additional utility easement. Ferrell signed both and returned them to Cox.

Cox had been contacted by Watson and others during the spring and summer of 1986 and asked to try to obtain utility easements for the property owners on the peninsula. In July 1987, as part of an agreement signed in January 1987, Cox combined the easements secured from Ferrell with other property rights he had assembled and sold them for $85,000 to Oceanville Associates, a partnership formed to develop the peninsula, of which Watson was a member.

Ferrell learned of the transfer of easement rights in June of 1988 after reading about it in a local newspaper. Ferrell brought the present suit against Cox, Mrs. Cox, Watson and Oceanville Associates seeking compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy and breach of a fiduciary duty. Prior to the submission of evidence to the jury, the Coxes moved for a directed verdict on all the counts of the complaint. The court granted them a directed verdict on the conspiracy count, but denied the remainder of their motion. The jury found no liability on the part of Mrs. Cox but found Cox and Watson liable for $250,000 in compensatory damages and assessed $75,000 punitive damages against Cox and $100,000 punitive damages against Watson. This appeal followed.

I.

Cox claims that the court abused its discretion when it excluded testimony bearing on the circumstances surrounding Ferrell's original purchase of the property. He claims the testimony was relevant because Ferrell had testified about the property's value at that time. The court ruled that any possible probative value the testimony might have was outweighed by the danger of confusion and prejudice. Such a ruling will stand unless it is shown to be an abuse of discretion. Gurski v. Culpovich, 540 A.2d 764, 766 (Me.1988).

Ferrell testified that the property was worth about $200,000 when he acquired it in 1980. Ferrell also testified that the property's most attractive feature was its relative seclusion. Cox asserts that the court should have allowed the jury to learn that Ferrell had not paid cash for the property but had received it in return for legal services. He also wanted to show that Ferrell discontinued his representation of Booth, the prior owner, before the conclusion of Booth's criminal case.

The court concluded that the property was obtained in exchange for legal services and that Ferrell discontinued his representation of Booth prior to the completion of his criminal case and this fact had little probative value. Cox maintains that these facts undermine Ferrell's contention that he bought the property because it was isolated. On the contrary, the land's seclusion may have prompted Ferrell to accept it in lieu of another form of payment.

Allowing testimony on the circumstances of Ferrell's acquisition of the property would have raised numerous tangential issues that had no bearing on the case. See M.R.Evid. 403. Testimony as to the value of the legal services Ferrell rendered and the nature of his arrangement with Booth had little or no probative value. The transaction took place seven years before the transfer of the easements and nine years before this suit was filed. The court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony as to how Ferrell originally acquired the property.

II.

Cox maintains that the court erred when it denied that portion of his motion for a directed verdict premised on Ferrell's failure to prove justifiable reliance, part of a plaintiff's prima facie case in an action alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. See Letellier v. Small, 400 A.2d 371, 376 (Me.1979). Cox advances two arguments in support of his contention that Ferrell failed to prove justifiable reliance. First, Cox claims that when there is a conflict between an oral statement and a written agreement, the court should accept the written agreement as evidence of the parties' intent and ignore the oral...