By: Ted Schmidt
McBride v. Kieckhefer Assoc., Inc., __Ariz.
Adv. Rep. __, 1 CA-CV 09-0299 (App. Div. I, November 3, 2011) (J. Gemmill)
TRIAL COURT MAY WEIGH EVIDENCE AND CONSIDER WITNESS CREDIBILITY
ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BUT MAY NOT ON MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT OR MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW/TRIAL COURT IS FINDER OF FACT ON EQUITABLE
ESTOPPEL THEORY
Plaintiff sued defendant for damages and the defendant raised
the statute of limitations as a defense. The plaintiff responded alleging
a tolling agreement and equitable estoppel and the jury agreed. The trial
court however granted defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law [JMOL]
(Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 50(b) and defendant’s motion for new trial on the issue of
the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed these rulings and the Arizona
Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
The court of appeals first noted that the JMOL was improper
because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support plaintiffs’
argument the statute of limitations was tolled. "When considering
motions for directed verdict or JMOL, a trial court may not weigh the
credibility of witnesses or resolve conflicts of evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom."
On the other hand, the court of appeals affirmed the trial
court’s granting of defendant’s motion for new trial because "[w]hen
ruling on a motion for new trial, a trial court is entitled to evaluate the
credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence to determine if the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence and contrary to substantial justice."
Finally, although the jury found the defendant equitably
estopped from asserting the statute of limitations, this remedy is equitable in
nature and thus the jury is only advisory; the trial court is the ultimate
trier of fact. Thus where the trial court found that the defendant did not
induce the plaintiff to delay in filing suit, did not engage in misleading
conduct causing plaintiff to file suit beyond the statute of limitations, that
settlement negotiations did not cause plaintiff to forego filing a timely
lawsuit and that plaintiff nonetheless did not file suit within a reasonable
period of time after settlement discussions ceased, rejecting the equitable
estoppels claim was proper.
