Linstrom v. Normile
2017 ND 194
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Homeowners Brian Linstrom and Leisa Bennett contracted with contractor Mike Normile to remodel their home for $107,000; they paid $137,000 after change orders. Normile claimed additional sums were due and filed a mechanic’s lien when not paid.
- The homeowners sued Normile for breach of contract and sought discharge of the lien; the case proceeded to a jury trial in McHenry County (Towner venue).
- Before trial, both parties filed conflicting motions in limine about whether the jury could view the premises; the court signed orders on both motions but ultimately allowed a jury walk-through with jurors accompanied by the judge and bailiffs while parties and counsel remained outside.
- At trial the court excluded testimony and exhibits from Normile’s proposed witness Gary Kramlich (who had not inspected the house) and excluded certified collection-judgment records against Linstrom as unduly prejudicial and not relevant to the construction dispute.
- The jury awarded the homeowners $119,925; Normile appealed, raising four principal challenges (jury walk-through, exclusion of Kramlich, exclusion of judgments, and improper venue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury walk-through of residence | Walk-through was proper under statute and district court discretion; Normile waived objection by not clearly objecting at trial | Walk-through was prejudicial; district court should have barred it per Normile's motion in limine | Waived: Normile failed to object at trial after acquiescing, so appellate review denied |
| Exclusion of Gary Kramlich’s testimony/exhibits | Kramlich’s testimony was irrelevant because he never inspected the house | Kramlich would show public-record evidence supporting Normile’s position on payments/house flipping and could be offered as fact or expert | Affirmed exclusion: court did not abuse discretion; other expert testified about house condition |
| Exclusion of certified collection judgments against Linstrom | Judgments are admissible to show motive/character relevant to defense | Judgments are unfairly prejudicial, not tied to the construction project, and thus inadmissible under Rules 403/404(b) | Affirmed exclusion: probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice; not abuse of discretion |
| Venue (trial location in Towner) | Venue caused prejudice due to small jury pool; should have been changed under Rule 39.1/statute | Homeowners: issue waived because Normile did not move for change of venue in district court | Waived: Normile never sought change of venue below; appellate court declines to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Killu, 710 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Steen, 860 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 2015) (need to renew objections at trial rather than rely solely on motions in limine)
- Jalbert v. Eagle Rigid Spans, Inc., 891 N.W.2d 135 (N.D. 2017) (district court discretion to permit juror view of premises under statute)
- Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 521 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1994) (proponent of other-acts evidence must show relevance and balance probative value against prejudice)