Court Opinion

ID: 9847542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:01:53.140443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.922187
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, J.,
dissenting.
The trial court ruled that Metropolitan breached the agreement. Because this ruling is not challenged on appeal, it became the law of this case. Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is whether, as a matter of law, Crist proved compensatory damages with reasonable certainty. I conclude that he did.
The parties’ agreement provided: “Metropolitan agrees to pay Viking $250.00 for each and every dwelling unit for which site plan approval is obtained.” Thereafter, the land was rezoned, and a site plan was approved for 86 units. Thus, the evidence estab*196lished, as a matter of law, that Crist was entitled to recover a judgment for at least $21,500 ($250 x 86 units).**
A reading of the majority opinion indicates to me that the majority refuses to accept the trial court’s unchallenged ruling that a breach occurred. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 Uncontradicted expert testimony introduced at trial established that site-plan approval could have been obtained for the development of 225 units. Although the fact finder reasonably could have calculated the damages on the basis of 225 units, it was not bound to award damages based on more than 86 units.