908 F2d 978 Vaughn v. Bank of Guam

908 F.2d 978

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Maria c. VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BANK OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-15718.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 17, 1990.*
Decided July 25, 1990.

Before TANG, NOONAN and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

MEMORANDUM***

2

The Bank of Guam ("Bank") appeals the Appellate Division's affirmance of a jury verdict in favor of Maria Vaughn ("Vaughn"). Upon review we affirm on the Appellate Division's statement of the facts and analysis.

3

The Bank contends that substantial evidence does not support the jury's special verdict that Vaughn does not owe the Bank $25,000.1 "The standard of review for a jury verdict in a civil case is whether it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Roberts v. College of the Desert, 870 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir.1988).

4

We uphold the jury special verdict. As the Appellate Division makes clear in its careful discussion of the facts, the jury could find for Vaughn on the issue of the $25,000 if it determined Vaughn had not refused to return the money. Substantial evidence supports the jury's conclusion that Vaughn had not renounced her agreement to repay the money. Vaughn never disavowed the note which settled the overpayment dispute. Evidence of that settlement was presented to the jury. Thus, the jury could conclude that, while Vaughn objected to the mortgage, she had not disavowed her obligation to pay back the Bank.

5

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

Honorable Irving Hill, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3


Advertisement
view counter
1

We have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Wabol v. Villacrusis, 898 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir.1990)