Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. William L. Amos
712 F. App'x 942
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Amos personally guaranteed millions in loans for a real-estate development; bank sued Amos. Amos brought a third-party claim against business partner Roderic Wright for fraudulent inducement; Wright and others counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract.
- After a jury trial, verdicts were returned for Amos on all claims. Wright appealed the denial of his JMOL motion and several evidentiary and instruction rulings.
- Wright argued on appeal (among other things) that Amos could not reasonably have relied on Wright’s alleged misrepresentations and that various evidentiary errors and instruction refusals prejudiced him.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the JMOL denial de novo and evidentiary/instruction rulings for abuse of discretion.
- The court declined to consider for the first time on appeal a fact-dependent argument about reasonable reliance because it was not raised below; it also found the trial record supported a reasonable jury verdict for Amos.
- The district court’s evidentiary admissions regarding an FBI investigation and prior business dealings, exclusion of Wright’s valuation testimony, and refusal to give two requested breach-related instructions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amos) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of JMOL on fraud claim | Amos: jury had evidence of Wright’s inducement and Amos’s reasonable reliance | Wright: evidence couldn’t support reasonable reliance; JMOL should be granted | Affirmed: appellate court refused to consider new reliance argument; record supports jury verdict |
| Admission of testimony about FBI investigation and past dealings | Amos: testimony relevant to when Amos learned of fraud and to falsity of Wright’s representations | Wright: testimony was prejudicial character evidence and improper | Affirmed: testimony relevant to timing, ratification, and falsity; not unduly prejudicial or improper character evidence |
| Exclusion of Wright’s testimony on property value | Amos: N/A (opposed admission) | Wright: he should be permitted to testify to property value | Affirmed: Wright failed to establish qualifications to offer valuation testimony |
| Refusal to give jury instructions on ratification and anticipatory breach | Amos: N/A (Amos did not bring breach claims against Wright) | Wright: requested instructions applicable defenses should be given | Affirmed: instructions unnecessary because Amos did not assert breach-of-contract claims against Wright |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for granting judgment as a matter of law)
- Watts v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 307 (11th Cir. 1988) (JMOL standard phrasing)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in district court generally not considered on appeal)
- Ledford v. Peeples, 657 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011) (new fact-dependent arguments disfavored on appeal)
- Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 636 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings and jury instructions)
- Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000) (suing for fraudulent inducement does not ratify the underlying contract)
- Zurstrassen v. Stonier, 786 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (ratification requires material act inconsistent with rejecting the fraud)
AFFIRMED.