Alonso v. Thomas
2021 Ohio 341
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Joan Jacobs Thomas represented Ann Alonso in a divorce from 2008 until 2014; Alonso sued Thomas for legal malpractice after the divorce concluded.
- Alonso’s expert (David Badnell) testified at trial that spousal+child support should have been $5,500/month indefinitely — figures that were not in his expert report.
- Thomas objected; after a sidebar the court sustained the objection as to the specific numbers but denied Thomas’ motion to strike the testimony and refused a curative instruction; Thomas’ attempt to rebut with her expert was limited because her expert’s report likewise contained no specific figures.
- The jury awarded Alonso $550,000 on the malpractice claim; the trial court later provisionally ordered a remittitur and a new trial on damages, Alonso accepted a remittitur reducing the judgment.
- On appeal, the Ninth District held the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to strike and refusing a curative instruction (because Badnell’s numeric damages testimony was beyond his report and prejudicial), reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on damages; other assignments (directed verdict/JNOV, prejudgment interest, remittitur/new-trial disputes) were addressed as preserved or rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alonso) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony beyond expert report | Badnell’s report addressed spousal support generally, so his numeric testimony was within scope and admissible | Badnell’s specific dollar/duration opinions were not in his report, so admission was improper and prejudicial | Court: Specific objection and motion to strike were timely; court abused discretion by denying strike and refusing curative instruction; admission prejudiced Thomas — remand for new trial on damages |
| Motion to strike & curative instruction; use in closing argument | References to Badnell’s $5,500/month were proper as evidence and arguable in closing | Even if objection to numbers was sustained, failure to strike + allowing closing references compounded prejudice | Court: Denial of strike and refusal to give curative instruction was error and prejudicial; allowing counsel to rely on inadmissible testimony in closing reinforced prejudice |
| Directed verdict / JNOV for insufficiency of spousal-support damages | Thomas: Without Badnell’s inadmissible numeric testimony, Alonso presented no evidence of spousal-support damages, so directed verdict/JNOV required | Alonso: Sufficient evidence of damages (including other categories); Badnell’s testimony was properly before jury | Court: Thomas forfeited directed-verdict renewal; JNOV inappropriate to attack admissibility of evidence; denial of JNOV affirmed because other damages evidence existed and JNOV cannot strike evidence post-verdict |
| Prejudgment interest / remittitur / scope of new trial (cross-appeal) | Thomas: Prejudgment interest award unsupported; various trial irregularities justified new trial | Alonso: Remittitur/new-trial order was proper; alternatively accepted remittitur | Court: These issues rendered moot or not reached in light of remand for new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2002) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 (Ohio 2005) (reversible evidentiary error requires showing substantial-rights prejudice)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 66 (Ohio 1982) (directed verdict standard: any evidence of substantial probative value defeats motion)
- Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1976) (same test applies to JNOV as to directed verdict)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2002) (appellate review of legal sufficiency is de novo)