SKOGLUND, J. In this commercial dispute involving the sale of a grocery store, defendants Barry Feldman, the New England Expedition-Colchester, LCC (NEE-Colchester), and Colchester Managing Member, LLC (CMM), ask this Court to strike jury-awarded punitive damages and to find that the trial court erred in numerous evidentiary rulings, in denying defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, and in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. For the below-stated reasons, we strike the punitive damages, but affirm the remainder of the trial court’s rulings and orders.
Feldman appeals, arguing that the trial court: (1) erred by allowing the jury to consider punitive damages in this commercial dispute; (2) abused its discretion by allowing Beaudoin to introduce evidence of the Rhode Island contempt order; (3) abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Beaudoin’s pre-2005 tax returns; (4) abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Feldman’s additional real estate projects; (5) erred by denying Feldman’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for Beaudoin’s failure to join allegedly indispensable parties; and (6) erred in denying Feldman’s motion for a new trial after Beaudoin’s counsel’s closing statement remarks.
Where a party failed to object to jury instructions pursuant Rule 51(b), it properly preserved its claim “that the trial court erred in submitting plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages to the jury” by seeking judgment as a matter of law in compliance with Rule 50(a) and renewing its motion after entry of the judgment as required by Rule 50(b). Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 171 Vt. 144, 154, 761 A.2d 688, 695-96 (2000). Because Feldman challenges the presentation of punitive damages to the jury in the first, Feldman properly preserved his claim for appellate review by complying with V.R.C.P. 50(a) and (b), regardless of “whether or not [he] also objected to the jury instruction.”
An award of punitive damages requires a showing of two essential elements—“wrongful conduct that is outrageously reprehensible” and “malice, defined variously as bad motive, ill will, personal spite 9 or hatred, reckless disregard, and the like.” The “conduct need not only be wrongful, but truly reprehensible,” and malice must be proven by “some showing of bad motive.”
Not every claim of bad faith, conversion, or breach of fiduciary duty warrants a punitive-damages award. The dispute must result in behavior that is truly reprehensible or egregiously awful. The evidence in this case did not rise to that level This was a dispute between two businessmen. While Feldman’s conduct may have been wrongful, intentional, and even actionable—as evidenced by the conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty judgments against him—as a matter of law, it falls short of the type of egregious behavior this Court has found to support punitive damages in the past. The record before this Court “cannot support a punitive award given the absence of outrageously reprehensible conduct and the lack of actual or legal malice towards” Beaudoin. Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33, ¶ 17. The trial court erred when it submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury because there was insufficient evidence to support it, and thus this Court must strike the punitive damages awarded by the jury.
ROBINSON, J., dissenting. The trial court’s refusal to admit highly relevant evidence bearing on the critical issue in this case was not supported by its reasoning and exceeded its discretion. I dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of Beaudoin’s pre-2005 tax returns, and I would reverse
I cannot agree that the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered evidence was irrelevant was within its broad discretion. I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Reiber joins this dissent
Feldman appeals, arguing that the trial court: (1) erred by allowing the jury to consider punitive damages in this commercial dispute; (2) abused its discretion by allowing Beaudoin to introduce evidence of the Rhode Island contempt order; (3) abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Beaudoin’s pre-2005 tax returns; (4) abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Feldman’s additional real estate projects; (5) erred by denying Feldman’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for Beaudoin’s failure to join allegedly indispensable parties; and (6) erred in denying Feldman’s motion for a new trial after Beaudoin’s counsel’s closing statement remarks.
Where a party failed to object to jury instructions pursuant Rule 51(b), it properly preserved its claim “that the trial court erred in submitting plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages to the jury” by seeking judgment as a matter of law in compliance with Rule 50(a) and renewing its motion after entry of the judgment as required by Rule 50(b). Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 171 Vt. 144, 154, 761 A.2d 688, 695-96 (2000). Because Feldman challenges the presentation of punitive damages to the jury in the first, Feldman properly preserved his claim for appellate review by complying with V.R.C.P. 50(a) and (b), regardless of “whether or not [he] also objected to the jury instruction.”
An award of punitive damages requires a showing of two essential elements—“wrongful conduct that is outrageously reprehensible” and “malice, defined variously as bad motive, ill will, personal spite 9 or hatred, reckless disregard, and the like.” The “conduct need not only be wrongful, but truly reprehensible,” and malice must be proven by “some showing of bad motive.”
Not every claim of bad faith, conversion, or breach of fiduciary duty warrants a punitive-damages award. The dispute must result in behavior that is truly reprehensible or egregiously awful. The evidence in this case did not rise to that level This was a dispute between two businessmen. While Feldman’s conduct may have been wrongful, intentional, and even actionable—as evidenced by the conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty judgments against him—as a matter of law, it falls short of the type of egregious behavior this Court has found to support punitive damages in the past. The record before this Court “cannot support a punitive award given the absence of outrageously reprehensible conduct and the lack of actual or legal malice towards” Beaudoin. Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33, ¶ 17. The trial court erred when it submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury because there was insufficient evidence to support it, and thus this Court must strike the punitive damages awarded by the jury.
ROBINSON, J., dissenting. The trial court’s refusal to admit highly relevant evidence bearing on the critical issue in this case was not supported by its reasoning and exceeded its discretion. I dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of Beaudoin’s pre-2005 tax returns, and I would reverse
I cannot agree that the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered evidence was irrelevant was within its broad discretion. I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Reiber joins this dissent
No comments:
Post a Comment