USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1227

MARYANN HALL,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE ALAN HALL,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

_____________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Anthony M. Fredella, with whom Fredella & Wheeler was on brief

___________________
__________________
for appellant.
Seth M. Kalberg for appellee.
_______________

____________________

November 6, 1996
____________________

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________

Appellant Maryann Hall,

former spouse of

defendant-appellee Lawrence

judgment

dismissing

agreement

for

her

an equal

Hall, appeals from a

diversity

division

suit for

of any

district court

breach

remaining

of

their

capital in

Merlin Machinery, a Massachusetts corporation in which each owned

shares.1

the

Maryann claims

that the adverse jury verdict

district court based its

the evidence and

new trial.2

that the court erred in denying

the weight of

her motion for

We affirm.

Maryann's timeous

Civ.

judgment is against

on which

P. 59(b)

evidence, see
___

requires that

motion for

we review

new trial under

the sufficiency

Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996

_________
______________

Fed. R.

of the

F.2d 425, 426-27

(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 993 (1993), but only for abuse
____ ______

of

discretion.

Id.

at 427.

Following

careful review

of the

__

entire

well

record, we

are satisfied

within its broad discretion

trial.

that the district

in denying the

court acted

motion for new

We add only these brief comments.

The district court submitted two questions to the jury.

The

first

remained

inquired

whether

Maryann had

or should have remained

proven

that

in Merlin Machinery

capital

as of the

____________________

1The

evidence is

viewed,

and every

reasonable

drawn, in the light most favorable to the verdict.

inference

J.D. Havinga
_____________

v. Crowley Towing and Transp. Co., 24 F.3d 1480, 1483

_______________________________

(1st Cir.

1994).

2As Maryann filed no motion for judgment as a matter of law,

see Fed. R.
___
claim.

Civ. P. 50(a), (b), we cannot

Hammond v.
_______

entertain the Rule 50

T.J. Litle & Co., Inc., 82

_______________________

F.3d 1166, 1171

(1st Cir. 1996).

agreed settlement date.3

The jury responded in the negative.

Unlike Larry, Maryann presented

this accounting question.

other

no expert testimony on

Moreover, although Maryann

evidence which, if credited by the jury, may have sufficed

to demonstrate undistributed capital in the corporation,

in

the

presented

record suggests

that the

jury

need have

nothing

accepted her

evidence

over

the

competing

evidence

offered

by

Larry.

Consequently, we must credit Larry's version, see J.D. Havinga v.

___ ____________

Crowley Towing and Transp. Co.,

________________________________

1994).

24 F.3d

1480, 1483

(1st Cir.

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.

________

____________________

3We do not reach the second question.