American United Life Insurance Company v. Sumpter et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 64 Motion to Stay; denying 65 Motion for New Trial; denying 67 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The Clerk is directed to hold the funds deposited with the Court for an additional thirty days. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 1/19/2016. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00586-GCM
AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOANNA ARTHUR
STEVEN BRUCE SUMPTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Sumpter’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No.
64), his Motion for a New Trial (Doc. No. 65) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 66), and
his Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 67) and (Doc. No. 68). Defendant Arthur’s
Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 69) and Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. No. 70) are also
before the Court.
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law will be denied. He did not move for
judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to a jury, and thus his Motion is
untimely. Irwin Indus. Tool Co. v. Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC, 747 F. Supp. 2d 568,
575 (W.D.N.C. 2010) (“To raise an issue in a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law,
a party must preserve that right by first making an appropriate motion under Rule 50(a).”).
Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial will also be denied. The Court did not err in answering
the jury’s second question. As the Court has explained, whether federal common law or North
Carolina law governs in this case is less than clear. However, under either body of substantive
law, it is clear that the signing of another person’s name with authority is not forgery. State v.

King, 630 S.E.2d 719, 725 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006); see Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 65558 (1962).
The Court also finds no error in its decision to grant Judgment as a Matter of Law to
Defendant Arthur on the claim of undue influence. “[U]ndue influence is generally defined as
influence that is sufficient to overpower volition, destroy free agency, and impel the grantor to
act against the grantor’s inclination and free will.” Tinsley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 700,
704 (6th Cir. 2000). Here, Defendant Sumpter presented no evidence that Defendant Arthur, or
anyone else, overpowered the Decedent’s free will in the matter of changing his beneficiary
designations or any other matter. Defendant Sumpter’s Memorandum purports to list
circumstantial evidence of influence in the record. The Court finds that the evidence listed is
insufficient to suggest anything beyond mere opportunity to influence. Because “[a] showing of
mere motive or opportunity to exert excessive control over another is not enough to make out a
claim of undue influence,” the Court properly directed a verdict in favor of Defendant Arthur on
this claim. Id. at 705.
Finally, Defendant’s Motion to Stay will be granted. The Court will stay release of the
contested funds until Defendant Sumpter determines whether he will appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Sumpter’s Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial are DENIED. Defendant Sumpter’s Motion to Stay is
GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to hold the funds deposited with the Court for an additional
thirty days.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 19, 2016