E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Roger Arnebergh, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

These appeals stem from a sharply contested dispute, involving silver futures contracts, between a broker, E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. (“Hutton”), and one of its customers, Roger Arnebergh. The jury rendered a verdict awarding damages to both sides. However, because of a lack of clarity in the verdict forms, the verdict was ambiguous and each side could interpret it as a net victory. That is what happened. Unfortunately, the ambiguity did not become apparent to the district court until several weeks after it had polled and discharged the jury.

How this confusion arose is worth relating in some detail. Hutton sued Arne-bergh for the balance due in his account, and Arnebergh sued Hutton for breach of contract, negligence and conversion. The cases were consolidated for jury trial. The parties stipulated that Arnebergh owed Hutton an account balance of $336,614. Hutton requested that the jury verdict form include the fact that the parties had stipulated to that amount, but such a statement was omitted on the objection of Arne-bergh. The jury was given a special verdict form as to Arnebergh’s claims against Hutton and a general verdict form as to Hutton’s claims against Arnebergh. The…

concurring:

I concur in the decision to affirm the district court’s judgment. However, because I conclude that the jury’s original verdict was unambiguous and was consistent with the district court’s ultimate judgment, I find it unnecessary to reach the issues discussed by the majority.

The court instructed the jury that the parties had stipulated that Arnebergh owed Hutton an account balance of $336,614. The court’s instructions provided that: “If you find that Roger Arnebergh has failed to establish all of the facts necessary to prove any of his several defenses or claims by a preponderance of the evidence, then you should render your verdict for that amount [$336,614] against the defendant Roger Arnebergh.”

In its special verdict, the jury found that Hutton had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with Arnebergh’s silver futures contracts, but not with his spot silver contracts. It explicitly found that 50% of the parties’ combined negligence in their transactions was attributable to Hutton, and 50% was attributable to Arnebergh.

In light of the instructions the jury was given and the answers it provided on the special verdict form, the…

775 F.2d 1061 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1597 E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Roger ARNEBERGH, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Nos. 83-6195/6222. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1985. Decided Nov. 5, 1985. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 23, 1986. Robert W. Fischer, Jr., Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant. Marcus Crahan, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and FARRIS, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge. 1 These appeals stem from a sharply contested dispute, involving silver futures contracts, between a broker, E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. ("Hutton"), and one of its customers, Roger Arnebergh. The jury rendered a verdict awarding damages to both sides. However, because of a lack of clarity in the verdict forms, the verdict was ambiguous and each side could interpret it as a net victory. That is what happened. Unfortunately, the ambiguity did not become apparent to the district court until several…