Michael J Biber v. Wayne W Webber
329455
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael J. Biber (attorney) claims an oral agreement with defendant Wayne W. Webber to pay a 1% commission/bonus for Biber’s role in the 2005 sale of Webber’s Texas companies; Biber seeks $2,000,000 from Webber.
- Biber testified to a handwritten 2% agreement in 2004 and an oral 1% agreement at a celebratory dinner on September 15, 2005; Burnett (15% owner) allegedly paid his share, but Webber did not.
- The sale closed for $220,000,000; $23,500,000 was held in escrow and later partially distributed after arbitration; $3,000,000 in legal fees went to BOFC (Biber’s firm) and others.
- At trial Biber introduced his testimony and a $300,000 check from Burnett; Webber presented evidence of substantial payments to BOFC and denied any $2,000,000 agreement.
- The jury found breach of contract but awarded $0 in damages; the trial court denied Biber’s post-trial motions and denied JNOV/new trial; Biber appealed and Webber cross-appealed (the panel declined to reach cross-appeal issues and affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict (finding breach but awarding $0) was legally inconsistent and required a new trial | Biber: verdict inconsistent as a matter of law because breach necessarily supports damages | Webber: jury permissibly found breach but that damages were not proved with reasonable certainty | Court: Verdict not inconsistent; jury could find breach yet award $0 because damages must be proved and jury was instructed to award money “if any.” |
| Whether JNOV was appropriate because damages were manifestly supported by the evidence | Biber: evidence overwhelmingly established $2,000,000 entitlement | Webber: evidence was disputed; only Biber’s testimony and a $300,000 check supported the amount; payments to BOFC could satisfy claim | Court: JNOV improper; reasonable people could disagree and issue was for jury; evidence created factual questions. |
| Whether a new trial should be granted because verdict was against great weight of evidence | Biber: verdict against great weight because proofs support $2,000,000 | Webber: conflicting evidence supported jury’s rejection of claimed damages | Court: Trial court properly denied new trial; deference to jury/factfinder where evidence conflicts. |
| Applicability of Farm Bureau (derivative-claim inconsistency) to require reversal | Biber: relies on Farm Bureau to show inconsistency | Webber: Farm Bureau involved derivative claims; distinguishable | Court: Farm Bureau distinguishable (derivative claims); here single breach claim allowed finding of breach and no proven damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granger v. Fruehauf Corp., 429 Mich. 1 (1987) (jury verdicts should be harmonized; set aside only when logically irreconcilable)
- Local Emergency Fin. Assistance Loan Bd. v. Blackwell, 299 Mich. App. 727 (2013) (a verdict is not inconsistent if an interpretation of the evidence provides a logical explanation)
- Joerger v. Gordon Food Serv., Inc., 224 Mich. App. 167 (1997) (plaintiff must prove contract damages before award)
- Alan Custom Homes, Inc. v. Krol, 256 Mich. App. 505 (2003) (damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and not by speculation)
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 99 Mich. App. 763 (1980) (inconsistency reversal where insurer’s claim was derivative of insured’s claim)