Damages calculation; Alan Custom Homes, Inc. v. Krol; Triple E Produce Corp. v. Mastronardi Produce, Ltd.

Finding no clear error in the trial court’s damages calculation in this breach of contract case, the court affirmed. The parties purchased a house when they were engaged. It was divided into two apartments, and they moved into one of them while renting the other to tenants. When their relationship ended, defendant (who was the only one listed on the mortgage) asked plaintiff to leave. Defendant continued to live in the house, and act as landlord to the tenants. She later sold the property for an approximately $27,000 profit, and “returned $4,000 to plaintiff for his contribution to the home’s down payment.” He filed suit, asserting breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. While the trial court determined that he did not have an ownership interest in the house, it “concluded that the parties had entered into a joint business venture concerning the rental property.” Thus, it believed that he was entitled to an accounting. Eventually, after finding that neither party’s “calculation constituted the actual damages sustained by plaintiff, but that the amounts in dispute did not justify employing an accountant to determine the precise amount” owed, it analyzed the income and expenses in the documents they provided and awarded plaintiff $8,500, including a $500 sanction for defendant missing a required settlement conference. On appeal, she argued that it erred in calculating damages, asserting that “the rental property produced a small surplus of $1,736.91 and defendant already repaid plaintiff $4,000.” But the court concluded that while the trial court did not detail how it reached the $8,000 figure, it appeared to arrive at the “award by relying on the parties’ testimony about certain expenses and using the expense figures provided by plaintiff and the method of calculation advocated by plaintiff. The resulting $8,000 was within the range of the evidence presented, and defendant” did not expressly challenge the award of $500 as a sanction.