Magee v. BEA Construction Corp.
797 F.3d 88
1st Cir.2015Background
- Robert and Zoraida Magee (New Jersey citizens) contracted orally with BEA Construction Corp. in Dec. 2008 to assemble a prefabricated vacation home in Vieques, Puerto Rico; they paid an $80,000 down payment and expected completion in 16 months.
- About a year later, plaintiffs asked BEA to pause work for Mr. Magee’s health; BEA agreed to refund unspent funds (~$74,406) but returned only $1,000.
- Parties entered a second oral agreement for a smaller house, with BEA to credit amounts owed from the first project; work stalled after limited site preparation between May 2011 and July 2012.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court (diversity) in Sept. 2012 for breach of contract; BEA counterclaimed for plaintiffs’ alleged default. Individual BEA officers were initially sued but the court granted JMOL for them before verdict.
- After a bench-tried jury verdict in April 2014, the jury found BEA breached and awarded $150,000; BEA did not move for JMOL or for a new trial post-verdict and appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that BEA breached the contract | Magee: testimony and conduct support breach and damages | BEA: record lacks evidence; jury verdict unsupported | Court: BEA failed to preserve challenge; even on the record no clear and gross injustice — verdict sustainable |
| Sufficiency of evidence that plaintiffs did not breach | Magee: plaintiffs paused work legitimately and sought refunds; second contract provided credit | BEA: plaintiffs defaulted, excusing BEA’s nonperformance | Court: unpreserved sufficiency challenge; credibility issues for jury — plaintiffs’ nonbreach reasonably found |
| Failure to move for JMOL / new trial | Magee: procedural default prevents belated appellate sufficiency attack | BEA: appellate review appropriate despite no JMOL/new trial motion | Court: appellant must move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50/59; omission bars appellate sufficiency review except for extreme injustice (not shown) |
| Consistency between JMOL for individuals and verdict against BEA | Magee: JMOL as to individuals consistent because contract was with BEA only | BEA: verdict inconsistent with prior JMOL for individuals | Court: no inconsistency — plaintiffs sued BEA, not individuals; corporate liability stands |
Key Cases Cited
- La Amiga del Pueblo, Inc. v. Robles, 937 F.2d 689 (1st Cir. 1991) (preservation rule and standard for appellate review of jury verdicts)
- Hammond v. T.J. Litle & Co., 82 F.3d 1166 (1st Cir. 1996) (necessity of JMOL preservation for sufficiency challenges)
- Cone v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (1947) (preservation requirement for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Climent-García v. Autoridad de Transporte Marítimo y Las Islas Municipio, 754 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2014) (difficulty of overturning jury on sufficiency grounds)
- Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard: review for clear and gross injustice when challenge unpreserved)
- Muñiz v. Rovira, 373 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (same — unpreserved sufficiency review limited)
- Blake v. Pellegrino, 329 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations are jury province)
- Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988) (parties must help themselves; procedural care required)
- Jusino v. Zayas, 875 F.2d 986 (1st Cir. 1989) (preservation of sufficiency challenges)
- LaForest v. Autoridad de Las Fuentes Fluviales de P.R., 536 F.2d 443 (1st Cir. 1976) (rule on failure to seek JMOL before appealing)