Schiavi v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 08 June 1988 |
| Citation | 542 A.2d 367 |
| Parties | John H. SCHIAVI v. Gordon GOODWIN, Sally Goodwin and Goodwin's Dairy, Inc. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Ernest Babcock (orally), Elizabeth J. Lovejoy, Friedman & Babcock, Portland, for plaintiff.
Constance O'Neil, Arlyn Weeks (orally), Conley, Haley & O'Neil, Bath, for defendants.
Before NICHOLS, * ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
The defendants, Gordon and Sally Goodwin and Goodwin's Dairy, Inc. (Goodwin), appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, Oxford County, entered on the jury's verdict finding that Goodwin had breached a written contract with the plaintiff, John H. Schiavi, to sell certain real estate to Schiavi. Goodwin asserts, inter alia, that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding. We agree and vacate the judgment.
Goodwin by a written contract dated September 21, 1984 agreed to sell a South Paris restaurant, including the business, buildings and land to a third party. Schiavi became interested in the property while it was under contract and was invited by Goodwin to submit a deposit on the property. By a letter dated October 17, 1984, Schiavi forwarded a $25,000 deposit to Goodwin "as a deposit on the purchase [of the property] based on the same terms and conditions as outlined in the agreement [of September 21, 1984 between Goodwin and the third party]." The letter further stated:
When the third party was unable to purchase the property, Schiavi and Goodwin agreed to close on the sale of the property to Schiavi on December 1, 1984. The property was not conveyed to Schiavi, and Goodwin retained the $25,000 deposit made by Schiavi. Schiavi brought suit seeking $25,000 in damages for the alleged breach by Goodwin of the contract between the parties, comprising the September 21 agreement and Schiavi's letter of October 17. Goodwin answered the complaint and counterclaimed seeking $35,000 in damages for the alleged breach of the contract by Schiavi.
The trial court denied Goodwin's motion for a directed verdict at the close of Schiavi's case and at the close of all the evidence. Goodwin then advised the trial court that Goodwin's counterclaim would not be pursued. On Schiavi's motion, a directed verdict was granted Schiavi on Goodwin's counterclaim. The parties then stipulated that the sole issue to be presented to the jury by a special verdict form was whether Goodwin had breached the written contract with Schiavi to sell the property to Schiavi, and if the jury returned a verdict for Schiavi, Schiavi's damages would be in the amount of $25,000. The jury found that Goodwin had breached the written contract, and a judgment was entered for Schiavi in the amount of $25,000. The trial court denied Goodwin's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, and Goodwin appeals.
When reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avery v. Whatley
...any reasonable view of the evidence and the justifiable inferences to be drawn therefrom can sustain the verdict. Schiavi v. Goodwin, 542 A.2d 367, 368 (Me.1988). In the instant case, the Averys were not contesting the will. Rather, the gravamen of their claim was that Kay had by undue infl......
-
CASTINE ENERGY CONST. v. TT Dunphy, Inc.
...A.2d 995, 1003. "The burden is on the moving party to show that the adverse verdict is clearly and manifestly wrong." Schiavi v. Goodwin, 542 A.2d 367, 368 (Me.1988); quoting Bowie v. Landry, 150 Me. 239, 108 A.2d 314, 315 [¶ 10] Contrary to Castine's position, violation of a safety statute......
-
Spickler v. Key Bank of Southern Maine
...any reasonable view of the evidence, including all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom, can sustain the verdict. Schiavi v. Goodwin, 542 A.2d 367, 368 (Me.1988); Buchanan v. Martin Marietta Corp., 494 A.2d 677, 678 (Me.1985). The burden is on the moving party to show that the adverse ver......
-
ST. FRANCIS DE SALES CU v. SUN INS. OF NY
...715 A.2d 919, 924. "The burden is on the moving party to show that the adverse verdict is clearly and manifestly wrong." Schiavi v. Goodwin, 542 A.2d 367, 368 (Me.1988). [¶ 26] A defendant is liable for fraud if the plaintiff establishes the following elements by clear and convincing eviden......