Opinion ID: 2054217
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith's Estimate of Future (After-Trial) Damages

Text: Creedon also explained his calculation of future (post-trial) damages with the help of a chart. Creedon testified that he had estimated for purposes of his calculations that the space would be left completely vacant for a period of approximately eleven months from the date of the trial. This estimate was based on Creedon's previous experiences with tenants similar in size to CUIC unexpectedly breaking their leases. [23] Creedon then explained that he had calculated damages in two parts. He testified that he had calculated damages for the first four monthsfor the period from October 1992 through January 1993simply by adding the four months rent that was owed to us... [and] discount[ing] the money owed [at] ten percent a year ... [as] specified in the CUIC lease. These four months represented the first four of the eleven months that Creedon estimated the space would remain vacant. See supra note 23. Damages for the first four months totalled $712,155.12. Creedon then explained his damages calculation for the remaining twenty months of the leasefor the period from February 1993 through September 1994. Creedon testified that he had calculated these damages by taking the difference in the present value amounts of what [Smith] would have received had [CUIC] stayed through their lease term [and subtracting] what [Smith will] receive now since they left early and [Smith will] have to release the space. According to this estimate, damages for the final twenty months would total $1,367,950.48. Finally, Creedon testified that the total damages for CUIC's breachcovering the period about which Hood testified and both periods about which Creedon testifiedamounted to $4,230,492.15. In making his estimates, Creedon defined fair market value of the premises. Initially, he noted that fair market value is the value of, in this case, the space on an open competitive market. The fair market value of the property during the eleven months for which Creedon estimated the building would remain vacant was therefore zero since, according to Creedon's assumptions, Smith was not likely to rent the space during that time. See Thomas v. Amoco Oil Co., 455 So.2d 1187, 1193 (La.Ct.App.1984); Look v. Werlin, 590 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex.Ct.App.1979). Creedon accordingly calculated damages for these eleven months by taking the present value of CUIC's rental obligations under the lease and deducting zero for the fair market value of the Lease. See supra note 12. Next, as to the final twenty months of the lease term (including the first eleven months discussed above), for which the fair market value of the Lease was zero, Creedon explained that Smith's damages were the difference in the present value amounts of what [Smith] would have received had they stayed through their lease term versus what [Smith will] receive now since they left early and [Smith will] have to release the space. (Emphasis added.) In short, Creedon addressed the fair market value of the Lease in his damages calculation for the final twenty months of the lease term by properly subtracting from the present ( i.e., discounted) value of the agreed rent the present value of the amount that Smith was likely to receive from relating the space.