Court Opinion

ID: 9620009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:36:52.435078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:46.678437
License: Public Domain

KENNETH M. ROMINES,
Judge, dissenting.
I dissent. The majority states the facts accurately, and states the law concerning repealed city ordinances correctly, although I do not believe this application is relevant under our facts. I depart as to how the damages are to be calculated.
The parties entered into a contract by which St. Louis County would determine an amount SSM owed, and after applying SSM's own credits, SSM would then purchase additional needed credits from Stahlhuth. SSM owed $1,406,459.63 as of 24 January 2008. The County applied Stahlhuth's credits in that amount to satisfy the TGA fees. SSM did not pay Stahl huth within five days-as required by the contract-for these credits. At this point, SSM breached the contract.
In May 2008, the County calculated the amount SSM owed, and determined that it was actually $1,065,999.97. The County further found that SSM had its own ered-its in the amount of $415,966.85. Therefore, SSM still owed $646,033.12. The County applied credits in that amount *674from Stahlhuth, leaving the rest of Stabl-huth's credits intact, and SSM paid Stahl-huth $646,033.12.
The trial court determined SSM breached the contract, which is true: SSM owed money in January 2008 and paid nothing until June 2008. The next task is to determine damages. It seems to me, damages are determined as the amount owed by SSM after the County calculates the credits at issue. We should look at the plain language of the contract to determine the amount owed. If we do that, we see that the amount owed Stahlhuth is whatever the County determined SSM owed, minus SSM's own credits. On the date of trial, looking to those amounts, the answer is $646,033.12. This is the amount to which Stahlhuth was entitled. SSM in fact paid this amount. Therefore, there are no damages remaining, other than interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
Stahlbuth's unused credits remain intact. It had $1,571,506.16, and SSM used/purchased $646,033.12. The rest remains, and in the event SSM adds new phases to its project or revamps the project entirely, prompting a new TGA, SSM will be liable under the contract for any use of those remaining credits. Stahlhuth has not been deprived of any of its credits. Were SSM required to pay more than $646,033.12, then Stahlhuth has the benefit of payment for credits that went unused. That was not the agreement and a breach does not entitle Stahlhuth to more than he would have received under the contract.
Stahlhuth goes on to argue that the County's repeal of the first ordinance and subsequent recalculation of the TGA were invalid, but Stahlhuth 1) did not raise these arguments at trial, and 2) has no standing to raise this issue in this case.
Before the sale of the property, Stahl-huth had a certain number of credits, worth approximately $1.5 million-these credits run with the land.5 The only reason Stahlhuth was entitled to any compensation for them at all was the existence of the contract with SSM-there clearly being no open market for these credits. The County's actions pertaining to the credits do not affect Stahlhuth's interest in them whatsoever, thus Stahlhuth cannot claim harm, apart from the contract, through the passage of a new ordinance. The County is free to do so, and any challenge to the validity of the County's actions would have had to come at the trial level through a party with standing suing the County. Stahlhuth may claim no relief in that respect here.
For these reasons, I would reverse and remand for the calculation of interest, costs, and attorney fees on $646,033.12.

. Whatever that could mean in County speak.