Mosell Equities, LLC v. Berryhill & Co.
154 Idaho 269
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Mosell Equities planned Polo Cove development and engaged Berryhill & Company regarding restaurant; Mosell paid consulting and later loaned funds.
- Exhibit 1 memorialized a loan-like arrangement intended to fund a buy-in in Berryhill & Company, with both parties signing.
- Restaurant moved downtown and expanded; Mosell funded improvements, then stopped rent payments and ended relationship.
- Claims included breach of contract (express/implied), unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, piercing the corporate veil; jury found against Mosell on most claims but for conversion.
- District court granted JNOV on Count I (express contract) and denied others; Mosell appealed and Berryhill cross-appealed.
- This Court reverses the JNOV on Count I and remands for consideration of a new-trial issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court correct in granting JNOV on Count I? | Mosell contends Exhibit 1 created a contract but not breach. | Berryhill argues terms and breach were clear; no genuine issue for jury. | District court erred; JNOV on Count I reversed. |
| Did jury instructions improperly affect contract terms interpretation? | Mosell asserts ambiguity and special meaning of 'loan'; jury could misread. | Berryhill contends instructions properly guided contract interpretation. | Instruction issue not dispositive; reversal on Count I. |
| Was the exclusion of a settlement letter error? | Letter admissible to impeach Berryhill; could influence credibility. | Discretionary ruling; record insufficient to show error. | No basis to assume error; record inadequate. |
| Should there be a new trial on any remaining issues? | New trial warranted to re-evaluate express contract breach along all elements. | No need if JNOV on Count I reversed; other counts unresolved. | Remand for consideration of a new trial on breach claim remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Shea v. High Mark Development, LLC, 153 Idaho 119 (2012) (standard for reviewing a motion for JNOV)
- Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759 (1986) (admissions and inferences in JNOV context)
- Bates v. Seldin, 146 Idaho 772 (2009) (quantity and value of evidence standard for JNOV)
- Spokane Structures, Inc. v. Equitable Inv., LLC, 148 Idaho 616 (2010) ( Rule 54(a) requirements and judgment structure)
- Heitz v. Carroll, 117 Idaho 373 (1990) (new trial standards and probability of different outcome)
- Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assoc., LLP, 148 Idaho 479 (2009) (trial error and preservation principles)
- Estate of Holland v. Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 153 Idaho 94 (2012) (judgment document requirements under Rule 54(a))
- Glacier Gen. Assur. Co. v. Hisaw, 103 Idaho 605 (1982) (preference for complete judgments rather than partial entries)
- Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841 (1995) (prohibition on partial judgments on single elements)