Contractual attorney fees; Failure to pursue this claim for damages during the trial; Pransky v Falcon Group, Inc; Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Award of damages for a lost opportunity

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-TRG’s posttrial motion for contractual attorney fees because, given “TRG did not pursue this claim for damages during the trial, the trial court lacked the authority to award attorney fees under the lease.” Further, the trial court did not err in denying defendant-M.G. Realty’s motion for JNOV because the jury’s verdict did not indicate “that it engaged in speculation when awarding damages for the lost opportunity to rent the adjacent suite below market value.” The case arose from a commercial lease between M.G Realty, the landlord, and TRG, the tenant. The 2013 lease included “the option to rent an additional adjacent suite in the Building should it become available during TRG’s lease term.” In 2017, TRG’s sole shareholder and president “learned that M.G. Realty leased the adjacent suite to a third-party without offering TRG the right of first refusal.” This breach of contract action was later filed. A “jury found that M.G. Realty had materially breached the lease agreement and constructively evicted TRG from the premises. The jury awarded TRG the sum of $123,157, which included $45,486 in damages for the lost opportunity to rent the adjacent suite at below market rates. Because the jury found that M.G. Realty’s first material breach of the lease excused TRG from the obligation to pay rent, a judgment of no cause of action was entered on M.G. Realty’s counterclaim.” On appeal, the court found Pransky instructive as to TRG’s attorney fee argument. Under the circumstances here, the court concluded that “had the trial court granted TRG’s motion, it would have entered judgment against M.G. Realty on a claim that was never actually pursued or proven at trial. As this Court found in Pransky, ‘a trial court may not enter judgment on a claim that was not brought in the original action in the guise of a postjudgment proceeding.’” As to M.G. Realty’s cross-appeal, the court determined that, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to TRG, the nonmoving party, reasonable inferences would permit the jury to find that had M.G. Realty complied with the lease terms and offered TRG the right of first refusal, TRG would have exercised the option and leased the additional office space.” Affirmed.