NICK SCHIMPF, APPELLANT,
v.
MATHIAS REGER AND ROSA REGER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a breach of contract action, the jury awarded damages of $189,594 to the Regers, including $32,760 labeled as "Return on principal due and unpaid." The appellate court affirmed the judgment except for the $32,760 award, which it found lacked evidentiary support, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment striking that portion.
The court affirmed the $156,834 portion of the damages award but reversed and remanded regarding the $32,760 award for "Return on principal due and unpaid," holding that this portion was not supported by evidence in the record and must be struck from the judgment.
[1] A portion of a damages award is not supported by the evidence when there is no reasonable basis in fact for that specific amount.
[2] A party seeking damages must present evidence to justify an award in a definite amount.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although difficulty in proving damages or uncertainty as to the amount will not prevent recovery as long as there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the mind of a prudent, impartial person as to the amount, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded.”
Establishes the standard for damages awards—evidence must support the specific amount, though exact proof is not required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNick Schimpf and the Regers (Mathias and Rosa Reger) entered into a contract. Schimpf allegedly breached the contract. The jury found a valid contract…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Nick Schimpf, challenges a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict rendered in favor of the appellees, Mathias Reger and Rosa Reger. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In this breach of contract action, the jury returned a verdict finding that the parties had entered into a valid contract and that Mr. Schimpf had breached the contract. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the Regers had sustained damages in the total amount of $189,594. The total damages included an award of $32,760 for what was labeled, “Return on principal due and unpaid.” After Mr. Schimpf s “motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for direct ed verdict” and his motion for new trial and/or remittitur were denied, he filed a timely notice of appeal from the final judgment.
Although Mr. Schimpf has raised several points on appeal, we find merit only in his contention that the portion of the verdict awarding the Regers $32,760 for “Return on principal due and unpaid” was not supported by the evidence presented to the jury. We affirm, without discussion, the judgment in all other respects.
Although difficulty in proving damages or uncertainty as to the amount will not prevent recovery as long as there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the mind of a prudent, impartial person as to the amount, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded. Smith v. Austin Dev. Co., 538 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Forest’s Mens Shop v. Schmidt, 536 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In this case, that basis does not exist for a portion of the award.
It is. incumbent upon the party seeking damages to present evidence to justify an award of damages in a definite amount, and the Regers did not do so. Although there was sufficient evidence to support that portion of the verdict awarding the Regers $156,834, the record does not support the additional $32,760 award. Damages cannot be based upon speculation or guesswork, such as that which has been advanced to us, but must have some reasonable basis in fact. Smith, 538 So. 2d at 129. That basis was not established in the record in this case, and the trial court erred by not striking the $32,760 award.
We, accordingly, remand with instructions to enter an amended final judgment omitting the $32,760 award. As mentioned above, we affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
THREADGILL, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SEA World OF Fla., Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Cos., Inc., 28 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…n. As such, Sea World’s burden of proof was that which is required in a breach of contract action — the presentation of evidence “sufficient to satisfy the mind of a prudent, impartial person” as to the amount of awardable damages. Schimpf v. Reger, 691 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). That is, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence for the amount awarded. Id. Here, Thompson’s testimony satisfied those requirements. Although Sea World was entitled to call an independent expert witness to corrobor…
-
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Kraz, LLC, 114 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…la. 2d DCA 2004) (“ ‘[TJhere must be some reasonable basis in the evidence to support the amount [of damages] awarded.’ ” (quoting Camper Corral, Inc. v. Perantoni, 801 So. 2d 990, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)) (alteration in original)); Schimpf v. Reger, 691 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Damages cannot be based upon speculation and guesswork, ... but must have some reasonable basis in fact.”). Thus, in the absence of any legally sufficient evidence to support this credit against the principal of Kraz’s loan…
-
Demchak v. Davia, 89 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…owever, the extent of their loss cannot be known until the house is sold, or perhaps title transferred through a foreclosure (or deed in lieu), if that be the case. Until one of those occurrences, there are no provable damages. See Schimpf v. Reger, 691 So. 2d 579, 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (stating damages cannot be based on speculation or guesswork but rather must have some reasonable basis in fact); George Hunt, Inc. v. Dorsey Young Constr., Inc., 385 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (“[Ejvidence as to the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forest's Mens Shop and Ladies Den of Stuart v. Schmidt, 536 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Smith v. Austin Dev. Co., 538 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)