Gilbert v. Cliche

• Citation: 398 A.2d 387
• Parties: Michael R. GILBERT v. Violet M. CLICHE.
• Decision Date: 01 March 1979
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

Page 387

398 A.2d 387

Michael R. GILBERT v. Violet M. CLICHE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 1, 1979.

Alan C. Sherman, Waterville (orally), for plaintiff.

Marden, Dubord, Bernier & Chandler by Albert L. Bernier, Waterville (orally), for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C. J., and WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY and GODFREY, JJ.

WERNICK, Justice.

This appeal challenges the entry by the Superior Court (Kennebec County), for the second time, of a judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict of a jury that defendant was liable to plaintiff.

Some fifteen months ago, in Gilbert v. Cliche, Me., 379 A.2d 717 (1977), we decided that the Superior Court's first judgment n. o. v. in favor of defendant must be set aside because the presiding Justice had acted without defendant's having filed a motion for judgment n. o. v. and thus improperly under Rule 50(b) M.R.Civ.P. We therefore remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. Thereafter, an appropriate motion for judgment n. o. v. having been filed by defendant, the presiding Justice granted the motion and again ordered judgment n. o. v. in favor of defendant. The Justice adhered to the view he had taken when he first ordered judgment for defendant. The conclusion was that the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements enunciated in Thurston v. Nutter, 125 Me. 411, 134 A. 506 (1926), as carried over from Wadleigh v. Katahdin Pulp & Paper Co., 116 Me. 107, 100 A. 150 (1917), which the Justice had instructed the jury, without objection by the parties, were here to govern whether or not defendant was liable to plaintiff.

We disagree with the presiding Justice. We find in the record sufficient evidence of facts that would support, as rational, a jury conclusion that the elements delineated in Thurston v. Nutter, supra, were present. We therefore sustain the appeal, and finding no reason for a new trial on the issue of liability, we order reinstatement of the verdict of the jury adjudicating defendant liable to plaintiff, see Rule 50(c) M.R.Civ.P., and remand the case to the Superior Court for the determination of damages.

Evaluated most favorably to plaintiff the evidence would support factual findings as follows. Plaintiff's mother, the defendant, made express declarations to plaintiff that she would convey the family farm to him at half price. Defendant acknowledged to two of her other children that she had made this proposition to plaintiff, and in her testimony at the trial she admitted having made it. Defendant also made various remarks to plaintiff giving him reason to rely on her promise to convey the family farm to him. Plaintiff signed mortgage papers on the family farm because defendant wanted him "put down as half owner of the farm", and for many years plaintiff paid the taxes that were assessed in both his name and defendant's. Defendant brought friends to the farm to show them the progress of one of the improvement projects in which plaintiff was engaged. Plaintiff's step-father helped him with another improvement project, the rebuilding of the barn. Throughout the period in which plaintiff occupied the farm, and in the course of which defendant had come to learn of the extensive improvements he had made, defendant never stated that he should consult with her before he was to undertake improvement projects. Defendant having reneged on selling the farm to plaintiff at half its value, plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the improvements made by him.

These facts would warrant ultimate jury findings that the controlling elements of Thurston v. Nutter were here satisfied, to-wit: (1) plaintiff ". . . render(ed) services beneficial to . . . (defendant)"; (2) "under circumstances that negative the idea that the services were gratuitous . . ." and (3) "the party (defendant), to whom the services . . . (were)...