Lester N. Turner, P.C. v. Eyde

• Decision Date: 07 March 1990
• Docket Number: Docket No. 103758
• Citation: Lester N. Turner, P.C. v. Eyde, 451 N.W.2d 644, 182 Mich.App. 396 (Mich. App. 1990)
• Parties: LESTER N. TURNER, P.C. and Lester N. Turner, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Patrick R. EYDE, Michael G. Eyde, and Eyde Brothers Development Co., Defendants-Appellants. 182 Mich.App. 396, 451 N.W.2d 644
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 644

451 N.W.2d 644

LESTER N. TURNER, P.C. and Lester N. Turner, Individually Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Patrick R. EYDE, Michael G. Eyde, and Eyde Brothers Development Co., Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 103758.

182 Mich.App. 396, 451 N.W.2d 644

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 7, 1989.

Decided Feb. 21, 1990.

Released for Publication March 7, 1990.

[182 MICHAPP 397] Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. by Webb A. Smith and Frank A. Fleishman, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellees.

John B. Curcio, Lansing, for defendants-appellants.

Before WEAVER, P.J., and BRENNAN and NEFF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal as of right from an order of judgment entered against them and in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $237,829.47 plus costs and interest and in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs in the amount of $1 plus costs and interest on defendants' counterclaim. Defendants also filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. We affirm.

I

Defendants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Defendants argue that Turner breached his fiduciary duty to defendants by failing to present defendants with reliable, accurate, and appropriate bills for services rendered and that an attorney [182 MICHAPP 398] who breaches his fiduciary duty to his client forfeits the right to compensation.

A trial judge may grant a new trial when the verdict is "clearly or grossly inadequate or excessive," MCR 2.611(A)(1)(d), or when the verdict is "against the great weight of the evidence or contrary to law." MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e).

A decision on a motion for a new trial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Stallworth v. Hazel, 167 Mich.App. 345, 353, 421 N.W.2d 685 (1988). This Court reviews such a decision to determine whether the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Troyanowski v. Village of Kent City, 175 Mich.App. 217, 223, 437 N.W.2d 266 (1988).

A trial court's denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed to determine whether there are material issues of fact upon which reasonable minds might differ. Means v. Jowa Security Services, 176 Mich.App. 466, 471, 440 N.W.2d 23 (1989). In deciding a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a trial court must examine the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that testimony in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. When the evidence is such that reasonable jurors could disagree, neither the trial court nor this Court may substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Means, supra.

In reviewing motions for a new trial and motions for a directed verdict, this Court recognizes the unique opportunity of the jury and trial judge to observe the witnesses. Stallworth, supra, 167 Mich.App. at p. 354, 421 N.W.2d 685. Here, plaintiffs and defendants...