Alonso v. Thomas
2020 Ohio 6660
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Joan Jacobs Thomas represented Ann Alonso in a divorce (2008–May 2014). After the divorce concluded, Alonso sued Thomas for legal malpractice; Thomas counterclaimed for several causes but the malpractice claim and a breach-of-contract counterclaim went to jury trial.
- Alonso called expert David Badnell to testify about domestic-relations issues and damages; on direct he opined that Alonso should have received $5,500/month (spousal + child support) for an indefinite term.
- Thomas objected at trial (initial general objections without stated basis), then obtained a timely, specific sidebar objection that Badnell’s numerical opinions were beyond his expert report and thus disallowed further numeric testimony; Thomas moved to strike the numbers but the trial court denied the motion to strike and refused a curative instruction.
- The jury awarded Alonso $550,000; the trial court later found error admitting Badnell’s spousal-support calculations, provisionally granted a new trial on damages but then allowed Alonso to accept a remittitur reducing the award to $339,760 plus prejudgment interest.
- On appeal the Ninth District concluded the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to strike and refusing a curative instruction, that Thomas was materially prejudiced because damages largely depended on Badnell’s inadmissible numbers, and it reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Alonso's Argument | Thomas' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony beyond expert report | Badnell’s report addressed spousal support generally; his trial testimony was permissible | Badnell’s specific numeric damages were not in his report and thus testimony exceeded the report and violated local rules | Court: testimony beyond report was improper; trial court should have stricken numbers and given curative instruction but abused discretion by refusing to do so |
| Preservation/timeliness of objection | Initial general objections waived/forfeited the issue | Counsel later made a timely, specific sidebar objection and moved to strike; preserved error | Court: initial general objections were insufficient, but the later specific objection and motion to strike were timely and preserved the issue |
| Motion to strike and curative instruction | N/A (Alonso opposed exclusion) | Motion to strike improper testimony and request for curative instruction after the specific objection | Court: trial court erred in denying motion to strike and refusing curative instruction; that denial was an abuse of discretion |
| Prejudice and remedy (effect on verdict) | Badnell’s testimony was cumulative or supported by other evidence; remittitur/new trial not required | Admission of inadmissible numbers prevented Thomas from rebutting and inflated damages; prejudice warrants new damages trial | Court: prejudice was material because damages largely rested on Badnell’s inadmissible calculations; reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 (reversible evidentiary error requires affecting substantial rights or inconsistent with substantial justice)
- State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56 (an objection is timely when raised at a time error could be corrected)
- O’Brien v. Angley, 63 Ohio St.2d 159 (standard for reversal when trial errors affect substantial justice)