Steckler v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1983
• Docket Number: MASSEY-FERGUSO,No. 10273,INC,10273
• Parties: Anton STECKLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v., a foreign corporation, Defendant and Appellee. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 659

334 N.W.2d 659

Anton STECKLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MASSEY-FERGUSON, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant and Appellee.

Civ. No. 10273.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 19, 1983.

Vogel Law Firm, Mandan, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Jos. A. Vogel, Jr., Mandan.

Zuger & Bucklin, Bismarck, for defendant and appellee; argued by Robert V. Bolinske, Bismarck.

SAND, Justice.

The plaintiff, Anton Steckler (Steckler), appealed from a district court order amending the original judgment to conform to the jury verdict, ¹ but vacating and discharging the original judgment and amended judgment, and ordering a new trial on all issues for the defendant, Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (Massey-Ferguson).

Steckler, after negotiations emanating out of a prior transaction, purchased a 1980 Model 2805 tractor from Massey-Ferguson, and, as part of the transaction, traded in a 1977 Model 2805 tractor. Steckler and Massey-Ferguson executed a retail installment contract and security agreement which reflected that the sales price of the 1980 model tractor was $60,174.00, including sales tax, and that the net trade-in allowance for the 1977 model tractor was $18,118.88.

The 1980 model tractor "purchased" by Steckler was shipped to and remained on Massey-Ferguson's lot. Steckler, after inspecting the 1980 model tractor, complained that it had a bent drawbar and 36 hours of use recorded on the hour meter. After unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the matter, Steckler notified Massey-Ferguson via certified mail that he did not want the 1980 model tractor and requested return of the trade-in allowance ($18,118.88) or return of the trade-in tractor which had been sold by Massey-Ferguson to a third party. Massey-Ferguson refused to return the trade-in allowance to Steckler, who then initiated this action against Massey-Ferguson to rescind the retail installment contract and security agreement and to recover the trade-in allowance of $18,118.88, the $360.00 sales taxes paid, the costs of renting replacement tractors for the spring of 1981 at $15.00 per hour ($4,153.57), and costs and disbursements.

At the trial special verdict questions were submitted to the jury, which answered them as follows:

                    "Adhering to these Instructions, we the
                Jury, for our Special Verdict, answer the
                questions as set forth herein in accordance
                with the instructions already given, as follows
                "QUESTION NO. 1
                ------------------------
                    "Did the tractor fail in any respect to
                conform to the contract between plaintiff and
                defendant
                   X
                -------                                     ------
                 (Yes)                                        (No)
                     "IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS NO. 1
                     'NO,' SKIP QUESTIONS 2 and 3 AND
                     GO ON TO QUESTION NO. 4
                "QUESTION NO. 2:
                ------------------------
                    "Did the plaintiff rightfully reject the
                tractor under the rules for rejection in these
                instructions?
                   X
                -------                                     ------
                 (Yes)                                        (No)
                     "IF YOU ANSWER QUESTION NO. 2
                     'NO,' SKIP QUESTION NO. 3 AND GO ON
                     TO QUESTION NO. 4. IF YOU ANSWER
                     QUESTIONS 1 and 2 BOTH 'YES,'
                     ANSWER QUESTION NO. 3, BUT SKIP
                     QUESTION NO. 4.
                "QUESTION NO. 3:
                ------------------------
                     "Did Plaintiff prove any damages?
                   X
                -------                                     ------
                 (Yes)                                        (No)
                     "IF YOU ANSWER 'YES,'STATE THE
                     AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ASSESSED
                     $24,556.20, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST
                     THEREON AT THE RATE OF SIX
                     PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE 1st
                     DAY OF Nov, 1980.
                     "IF YOU ANSWER QUESTION NO. 3,
                     SKIP QUESTION NO. 4.
                "QUESTION NO. 4:
                ------------------------
                     "Did Defendant prove any damages?
                                                                 X
                -------                                     ------
                 (Yes)                                        (No)
                     "IF YOU ANSWERE QUESTION NO. 4
                     'YES,' STATE THE AMOUNT OF
                     DAMAGES ASSESSED. $____________,
                     TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON
                     AT THE RATE OF SIX PERCENT PER
                     ANNUM, FROM THE ______ DAY OF
                     ______, 19__.
                "QUESTION NO. 5:
                 "What do you find to have been the equity
                value of Plaintiff's interest in the tractor he
                traded in as of November 1, 1980?
                     "$ 18, 218 .
                        ------------
                     "NOTE: QUESTION NO. 5 MUST BE
                     ANSWERED.
                     "Dated the 28 day of April,
                1982, at Mandan, North Dakota.
                          S/ Terry P. Moszer
                          ------------------------------
                          FOREMAN OF THE JURY"
                

Judgment was entered accordingly, after which Massey-Ferguson moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that (1) the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, (2) the damages were excessive and were the result of "influence with passion or prejudice," and (3) the jury abused its discretion, thus preventing Massey Ferguson from having a fair trial. ² Massey-Ferguson alternatively asked that, if the motion for new trial was not granted, the court should issue an order amending the judgment to conform with the verdict. (See footnote 1.)

The court ordered that the judgment be amended to conform with the verdict but vacated the original and amended judgment, and granted a new trial on the grounds that an irregularity in jury proceedings existed (failure to follow instructions as to damages) preventing Massey-Ferguson from having a fair trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support the damage verdict. Steckler appealed.

On appeal, Steckler contended that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Massey-Ferguson's motion for a new trial. ³ Steckler asserted that the trial court erred in concluding that the damages awarded by the jury were outside the range of the evidence and that the jury failed to follow the instructions which constituted an irregularity in the proceedings.

A motion for a new trial made pursuant to NDRCivP 59(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's action in granting a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown. E.g., Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264 (N.D.1982). An abuse of discretion exists whenever the trial court acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. Okken v. Okken, supra. The trial court's discretion in granting a motion for a new trial is distinguishable from our power on appeal, which is limited to a determination of whether or not the granting of the motion was an abuse of discretion. Cook v. Stenslie, 251 N.W.2d 393 (N.D.1977). Furthermore, a stronger showing is required to reverse the granting of a new trial than to reverse an order denying a motion for a new trial. Okken v. Okken, supra.

If a motion for a new trial is based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict, the trial judge may, within limits, weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. Okken v. Okken, supra. In reviewing the granting of a new trial based upon insufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Scientific Application, Inc. v. Delkamp, 303 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1981).

With these principles of law in mind we will initially consider whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the basis the jury verdict had no support in and was outside the range of the evidence.

Steckler contended that the evidence introduced at the trial adequately established and supported all the following damages which the jury awarded to him, including the interest which was also pursuant to jury instructions:

                Loss of traded-in tractor          $18,118.88
                ($18,118.85--three-cent error
                 discussed later)
                Sales tax paid on new tractor          360.00
                Rental of replacement tractors       4,153.57
                                                   ----------
                Interest on damages @ 6%, 1 Nov
                 1980 through March 1982             1,923.75
                                                   ----------
                (See jury instructions later)
                Grand total of damages as awarded
                 by jury                           $24,556.20
                

The figure of $1,923.75 represents and is in this respect an amount in excess of the amount prayed for in Steckler's complaint. The complaint, however, asked for ten percent interest, which was the rate specified in the installment contract and security agreement.

Massey-Ferguson, in opposition, asserted that the record contained no evidence supporting the equity value of $18,218.00 for the 1977 model tractor traded in by Steckler, which is the figure the jury gave in response to question number five of the special verdict. Massey-Ferguson introduced evidence that the equity of the trade-in tractor was not the same as the net trade-in allowance, and that the net trade-in allowance was an artificial figure, used as a common practice, to encourage business.

The retail installment contract and security agreement entered into between Steckler and Massey-Ferguson and admitted into evidence without objection states, under the various box headings, as follows:

                Trade-in allowance  $ 41,814.00
                Less owing          $ 23,695.15
                New trade-in        $ 18,118.88
                

Obviously, a three-cent error was made on the line item "net trade-in" because arithmetically the figure should have been $18,118.85 instead of $18,118.88; nevertheless, the figure with the three-cent error was carried forward and used throughout the subsequent...