When can Utah courts set aside jury verdicts against the weight of evidence? In re the Estate of Dick E. Bastian Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in In re the Estate of Dick E. Bastian reaffirmed the authority of trial courts to set aside jury verdicts when the evidence clearly preponderates against the verdict, providing important guidance on the standard for post-trial relief.

Background and Facts

This probate dispute arose when G. Richard Bastian filed a wrongful death claim alleging that his stepmother Susan Bastian and her daughter intentionally poisoned his father. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death claim and sanctioned Gary Bastian and his attorney. Susan Bastian then filed counterclaims against Gary and his four children for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful use of civil proceedings. The jury returned favorable verdicts on all counterclaims, but the trial court subsequently set aside the verdicts against Gary’s daughters, Jessica and Chelsea.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict against Jessica and Chelsea Bastian on the tort claims. The court applied the standard that a verdict should be set aside when the evidence “so clearly preponderates in favor” of the defendants “that reasonable people would not differ on the outcome.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Reviewing for correctness, the Court of Appeals found no evidence that Jessica and Chelsea initiated or were even aware of the wrongful death claim filed on their behalf. Both daughters testified they were unaware of the lawsuit’s existence and had only general knowledge of family disputes. The court determined that meeting with an attorney and having general awareness of family concerns was insufficient to support liability for wrongful use of civil proceedings or abuse of process.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that trial courts retain significant authority to correct verdicts against the weight of evidence, particularly when reviewing decisions akin to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Practitioners must ensure adequate evidence links each defendant to the alleged wrongful conduct rather than relying on collective or circumstantial evidence.