Hall v. Hall

USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


No. 96-1227

MARYANN HALL,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE ALAN HALL,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,

Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________



Anthony M. Fredella, with whom Fredella & Wheeler was on brief ___________________ __________________
for appellant.
Seth M. Kalberg for appellee. _______________


____________________

November 6, 1996
____________________

















Per Curiam. Appellant Maryann Hall, former spouse of Per Curiam. __________

defendant-appellee Lawrence Hall, appeals from a district court

judgment dismissing her diversity suit for breach of their

agreement for an equal division of any remaining capital in

Merlin Machinery, a Massachusetts corporation in which each owned

shares.1 Maryann claims that the adverse jury verdict on which

the district court based its judgment is against the weight of

the evidence and that the court erred in denying her motion for

new trial.2 We affirm.

Maryann's timeous motion for new trial under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(b) requires that we review the sufficiency of the

evidence, see Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996 F.2d 425, 426-27 ___ _________ ______________

(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 993 (1993), but only for abuse ____ ______

of discretion. Id. at 427. Following careful review of the __

entire record, we are satisfied that the district court acted

well within its broad discretion in denying the motion for new

trial. We add only these brief comments.

The district court submitted two questions to the jury.

The first inquired whether Maryann had proven that capital

remained or should have remained in Merlin Machinery as of the


____________________

1The evidence is viewed, and every reasonable inference
drawn, in the light most favorable to the verdict. J.D. Havinga _____________
v. Crowley Towing and Transp. Co., 24 F.3d 1480, 1483 (1st Cir. _______________________________
1994).

2As Maryann filed no motion for judgment as a matter of law,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), (b), we cannot entertain the Rule 50 ___
claim. Hammond v. T.J. Litle & Co., Inc., 82 F.3d 1166, 1171 _______ _______________________
(1st Cir. 1996).

2












agreed settlement date.3 The jury responded in the negative.

Unlike Larry, Maryann presented no expert testimony on

this accounting question. Moreover, although Maryann presented

other evidence which, if credited by the jury, may have sufficed

to demonstrate undistributed capital in the corporation, nothing

in the record suggests that the jury need have accepted her

evidence over the competing evidence offered by Larry.

Consequently, we must credit Larry's version, see J.D. Havinga v. ___ ____________

Crowley Towing and Transp. Co., 24 F.3d 1480, 1483 (1st Cir. ________________________________

1994). Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed. ________






























____________________

3We do not reach the second question.

3