Opinion ID: 2558397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 43] Our review of compensatory damage awards, the assessment of which is in the sole province of the fact-finder, is highly deferential. Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98, ¶ 20, 798 A.2d 1104, 1112. We will disturb an award of damages only when it is plain that there is no rational basis upon which the amount of the award may be supported, that is, when there is no competent evidence in the record to support the award. Id. Damages that are uncertain, contingent, or speculative are not recoverable. Wood v. Bell, 2006 ME 98, ¶ 21, 902 A.2d 843, 851. [S]ome evidence of the amount of the loss sustained must support an award, but damages need not be proved to a mathematical certainty. Reardon, 2004 ME 74, ¶ 8, 852 A.2d at 69; see also Foss v. Ingeneri, 561 A.2d 498, 498-99 (Me.1989) (holding that plaintiff retains the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence following entry of default judgment); Decesere v. Thayer, 468 A.2d 597, 598 (Me.1983) (Damages must be grounded on established positive facts or on evidence from which their existence and amount may be determined to a probability.). The fact-finder may also act upon probable and inferential ... proof in determining damages. Tang of the Sea, Inc. v. Bayley's Quality Seafoods, Inc., 1998 ME 264, ¶ 10, 721 A.2d 648, 650. [¶ 44] The Chandlers submitted the following evidence in support of their claim of compensatory damages: a. Bank records that the Stifels admitted were true and genuine, and summaries thereof (as supported by testimonial evidence), showed debits from two of Hoch's German bank accounts from the period October 11, 2006, through June 24, 2008, the date on which Hoch died, totaling 177,631.76 euros. The Chandlers identified the payee in each transaction, excluding payments that were identified as reasonable compensation to the Naturhotel for Hoch's room and board and payment for her necessary medical care. We observe that two of these debits, totaling 2,325.06 euros, were made by or to Gudrun Stifel in late 2006. Although these debits occurred before the Stifel POA was executed on January 25, 2007, they occurred well after Hoch was under the exclusive care and control of the Stifels. Based on the allegations of the complaint, deemed to be adjudicated fact following entry of the default judgment, we cannot conclude that the court clearly erred in including them in its compensatory damages calculation. [¶ 45] An additional 54,433.08 euros was debited from one of these accounts after Hoch's death, presumably by virtue of the Stifel POA, given these were debits. b. Bank records that the Stifels admitted were true and genuine, and summaries thereof (as supported by testimonial evidence), showed transfers out of three of Hoch's accounts and corresponding amounts being transferred contemporaneously into accounts owned by the Stifels a month after Hoch's death. The total amounts transferred were 265,701.87 euros. c. Bank records that the Stifels admitted were true and genuine, and summaries thereof (as supported by testimonial evidence), showing the value in May 2008 of Hoch's brokerage account at 2,184,694.15 euros. The evidence further shows that two brokerage accounts owned by the Stifels as of mid-August 2008 were valued at 2,048,032.93 euros. The Stifels admitted that the assets held in Hoch's brokerage account were transferred to the Stifels by operation of law pursuant to Hoch's will. The Chandlers met their burden of showing damages due to the transfer of Hoch's brokerage account assets, valued somewhere between 2,184,694.15 euros and 2,048,032.93 euros. However, the record does not show on what date the transfers occurred or what the value of Hoch's account was on that date. The trial court included 2,184,694.15 euros, the value of Hoch's account as of mid-May 2008, in its compensatory damages calculation. We conclude, however, that valuing damages based on the mid-May 2008 valuation date was speculative and that the better measure of damages in this instance is the mid-August valuation of 2,048,032.93 euros. [8] d. The Stifels admitted that Hoch's German home, which they themselves valued at 80,000 euros, was transferred to them by operation of law under Hoch's German will. A property owner is competent to value his own property, and therefore, competent record evidence supports the inclusion of 80,000 euros in the compensatory damages award. [¶ 46] Accepting the Chandlers' position that these debits or transfers were unauthorized, pursuant to the adjudicated facts in the case and the determination of the Stifels' liability, and were proximately caused by the Stifels' tortious conduct, the record supports the court's determination of compensatory damages with one exception: damages resulting from the transfer of Hoch's brokerage account assets should be 2,048,032.93 euros rather than 2,184,694.15 euros. [¶ 47] The total is thus: -------------------------------------------------- Pre- and Post-Death 232,064.84 euros Debits from Hoch's Bank Accounts -------------------------------------------------- Post-Death transfers 265,701.87 euros from Hoch's accounts into the Stifels' accounts -------------------------------------------------- Value of assets transferred 2,048,032.93 euros from Hoch's brokerage account -------------------------------------------------- Value of Hoch's 80,000 euros German Home __________________________________________________ TOTAL 2,625,799.64 euros -------------------------------------------------- [¶ 48] Applying the exchange rate accepted at trial of $1.4269 per euro, the record supports a compensatory damages award of $3,746,753.50.