Court Opinion

ID: 9766819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:59:59.076826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.304190
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s affirmation of the damages. The trial court held the measure of damages was the *341reasonable rental value of the premises during the holdover period and the majority agrees. They are absolutely correct when there is no provision or agreement as to the amount of rent or when the holdover is wrongful. The majority has correctly cited cases for each of these propositions. The majority, however, has cited no case where the reasonable rental value was the proper measure of damages when an agreement provided for the rental amount during the holdover.
This particular lease provided that in the event the tenant remained in possession after the expiration of the lease, then it would be deemed a month-to-month tenancy subject to all the conditions of the lease. Appellant’s monthly rental, under the lease was based upon fuel sales and hangar rental receipts plus a percentage of the net annual profit.
The trial judge and the majority attempts to justify their measure of damage standard because of appellant’s refusal or inability to furnish financial statements wherein profit could be calculated. This justification perhaps would be proper if appellee had produced evidence of their inability to establish such a figure. There was evidence of the amount of fuel sales and hangar rental receipts for the holdover period. It is not unreasonable, in my opinion, for appellee to have calculated the profit figure based on prior years data and then extrapolated that to the holdover period. It is not unreasonable, in my opinion, for appellee to have consulted an expert in the field of small fixed-base airport operators and offered his opinion of appellant’s profit during the holdover period. Yet ap-pellee chose not to proceed in this manner but rather to adopt the reasonable rental standard.
I do not condone the actions of appellant in failing to furnish financial data and concur in the points of error affirming the sanctions imposed. I do not believe, however, these acts alone justify abandoning the agreement as to holdover rents when appellee has not shown an inability to independently calculate those amounts. I would, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of rents due. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.