
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT        No. 96-1227                    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.   Appellant Maryann Hall,  former spouse of                    Per Curiam.                    __________          defendant-appellee Lawrence  Hall, appeals from a  district court          judgment  dismissing  her  diversity  suit for  breach  of  their          agreement  for  an equal  division  of any  remaining  capital in          Merlin Machinery, a Massachusetts corporation in which each owned          shares.1  Maryann claims  that the adverse jury verdict  on which          the  district court based its  judgment is against  the weight of          the evidence and  that the court erred in denying  her motion for          new trial.2  We affirm.                    Maryann's timeous  motion for  new trial under  Fed. R.          Civ.  P. 59(b)  requires that  we review  the sufficiency  of the          evidence, see  Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez, 996  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  record, we  are satisfied  that the district  court acted          well  within its broad discretion  in denying the  motion for new          trial.  We add only these brief comments.                      The district court submitted two questions to the jury.          The  first  inquired  whether  Maryann had  proven  that  capital          remained  or should have remained  in Merlin Machinery  as of the                                        ____________________               1The  evidence is  viewed,  and every  reasonable  inference          drawn, in the light most favorable to the verdict.  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.  Civ. P. 50(a), (b), we cannot  entertain the Rule 50          ___          claim.   Hammond v.  T.J. Litle &  Co., Inc., 82  F.3d 1166, 1171                   _______     _______________________          (1st Cir. 1996).                                          2          agreed settlement date.3  The jury responded in the negative.                      Unlike Larry, Maryann presented  no expert testimony on          this accounting question.   Moreover, although Maryann  presented          other  evidence which, if credited by the jury, may have sufficed          to demonstrate undistributed capital in the corporation,  nothing          in  the  record suggests  that the  jury  need have  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.,  24 F.3d  1480, 1483  (1st Cir.          ________________________________          1994).  Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.                                                                ________                                        ____________________               3We do not reach the second question.                                          3
