Opinion ID: 1690049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appellant's Alleged Damages.

Text: The trial court decided that appellant had failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove any damages. Appellant asserts that proper proof was made in three different respects. First, a compendium of promotional, maintenance, and personal expenses was introduced into evidence without objection by respondents. At no time, however, did appellant produce evidence establishing that any of this expense was actually lost due to the refusal of respondents to convey the lots. It is impossible to glean from the record which of the expenses listed in the compendium amounted to damages and which were ordinary business outlays not connected in any way to respondents' conduct or payments related to the sale of lots which respondents had conveyed. Appellant relies on Altschuler v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. [7] and Essock v. Mawhinney. [8] In Essock, however, there was no doubtwhere here there isthat the defendants had caused the damages prayed for. The only question was as to the amount of damages sustained. Altschuler merely stands for the general proposition that damages which arise naturally from a breach of contract or which are reasonably in contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract can be recovered. In that case there were specific damages which, on the facts, must have followed from the breach. Here appellant has failed to show that any of the expenses became damages after respondents' refusal to convey lots. Second, appellant claims loss of profits on each of 10 lots which third parties had contracted to purchase, but which could not be conveyed because respondents refused to deliver deeds. The 10 contracts involved were between the various purchasers and the Russ Lesperance Real Estate Corporation. The trial court would not allow introduction of the contracts because they involved writings between parties who were not involved in the case. Appellant Hope Acres, Inc., argues that an arrangement between it and the real-estate company makes appellant the real party in interest pursuant to sec. 260.13, Stats., [9] for the purpose of recouping any loss on the contracts. But appellant has not sustained the burden of proving that it is the real party in interest. No evidence was introduced of any agreement between the two firms showing that Hope Acres had the right to control and receive the recovery of the proceeds. [10] The business decision having been made to treat the Russ Lesperance Real Estate Corporation as the seller to the third party purchasers, it became necessary that the real-estate company be joined in the suit as a party plaintiff in order to recover any lost profits on these contracts. The contracts were properly excluded from evidence and cannot be considered for ascertaining lost profits. Russel Lesperance testified as to the amount of loss sustained on the previously mentioned contracts. This testimony is likewise immaterial to the issue of damages because it was not established that Hope Acres, Inc., actually suffered the loss. Third, appellant asserts that it lost money on contracts to build houses on these 10 lots. The contracts were between the third parties and either Russ Lesperance Builders, Inc., or Award Builders. For the reasons given in the three previous paragraphs any evidence in regard to these losses was inadmissible.