Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Linda S. Etienne, Commissioner, Super. Ct. No. CV254372
Owen T. Mascott for Defendants and Appellants.
Sukhwinder Singh, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Kane, J.
Sukhwinder Singh (hereafter plaintiff) agreed to lease to Randeep Singh (hereafter defendant) a 1997 Utility truck trailer for use in defendant’s trucking business. After defendant stopped making monthly payments, plaintiff canceled the lease and sought the return of his trailer. When that did not occur, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and was successful in recovering the trailer by means of a writ of possession. Repossession of the trailer, however, did not end the parties’ dispute because plaintiff’s complaint also sought recovery of damages for unpaid rent and other losses. At the trial of the damage claims, defendant asserted that it was plaintiff who breached or repudiated the agreement by failing to make certain repairs. The trial court disagreed, found that defendant had breached the agreement, and awarded plaintiff the sum of $17,067. Defendant appeals, claiming reversible error on two grounds: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that defendant breached the agreement, and (2) damages were improperly calculated. We conclude the first ground fails because there is no adequate record on appeal to support the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the judgment is presumed to be correct. In regard to measure of damages, we agree based on error disclosed on the face of the record that the trial court improperly awarded rental damages for the period of time after possession of the trailer was recovered. Accordingly, we will remand the case to the trial court to recalculate the damage award, but in all other respects the judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
On May 14, 2004, plaintiff and defendant executed a written lease agreement pursuant to which defendant would lease the truck trailer from plaintiff on a month-to-month basis, for a rental payment of $1,150 per month. Also set forth therein were the parties’ respective obligations regarding repairs. Under the written agreement, each party had the right to cancel the lease upon giving 30 days written notice.
A few months later, after defendant failed to make rental payments, plaintiff served a written notice of cancellation of the lease and demanded that defendant return the trailer immediately.
Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on December 9, 2004. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, claim and delivery, and conversion. The relief sought therein included damages for unpaid rent and return of the trailer. On February 15, 2005, plaintiff’s application for a writ of possession was granted by the trial court. After the writ was issued, plaintiff’s trailer was recovered on February 18, 2005.
On March 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended pleading removed the claim and delivery cause of action. In the breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff continued to seek unpaid rent, together with interest thereon, plus costs of repossession. In the conversion cause of action, plaintiff sought recovery of punitive damages against defendant.
On September 26, 2005, the case was tried by the court. Each party appeared on his own behalf (in pro. per.). Each called witnesses and introduced exhibits at trial. The documentary exhibits included billing and other records on the issue of the condition of the trailer and the need of repairs. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court issued a written decision in favor of plaintiff on September 27, 2005. The court amended its decision on November 3, 2005, to correct an error in the amount awarded. Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $17,067 was entered on January 10, 2006. Defendant’s notice of appeal followed.
The parties stipulated that Commissioner Etienne would act as judge pro tem of the superior court.
DISCUSSION
I. Lack of Adequate Record Precludes Challenge to Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant contends the trial court erred because the evidence presented at trial showed that plaintiff, rather than defendant, was the party who actually breached or repudiated the contract. This contention amounts to a claim that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision that defendant was the breaching party.
We note that in connection with this appeal, defendant filed a “Notice Designating Record on Appeal.” In that document, defendant elected to appeal on the basis of the clerk’s transcript only. Consequently, we have not been provided with a reporter’s transcript or other approved record of the oral testimony at trial.
Fundamentally, appellate review begins with the presumption that the trial court’s judgment is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to overcome that presumption of correctness and to show reversible error. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) Accordingly, an appellant is responsible for providing an adequate record demonstrating error. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132.) Absence of a record of the oral proceedings at trial precludes any challenge based on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 132; Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660; Navarro v. Perron (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 797, 801; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 561, p. 598.) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citations].” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.163, provides as follows regarding appeals taken based on a partial record: “The reviewing court will presume that the record in an appeal includes all matters material to deciding the issues raised. If the appeal proceeds without a reporter’s transcript, this presumption applies only if the claimed error appears on the face of the record.” Here, the face of the record does not demonstrate there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the judgment.
Here, because defendant has failed to provide an adequate record of the trial proceedings, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be denied. “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.” (Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 660.)
II. Error Regarding Calculation of Damages
It is undisputed from the pleadings on file that plaintiff recovered possession of the trailer in February of 2005. In computing plaintiff’s damages, the trial court’s written decision provided as follows: “The daily rental value of the trailer is $38.33 per day. From May 14, 2004, through the day of trial was a period of sixteen months and twelve days, for a total rental of $18,860. Defendant made payment of $1,760, plus $33.00 paid for inspection of the trailer at the time of delivery of the trailer for which plaintiff … was contractually responsible, for a total net rental due of $17,067. [¶] Plaintiff … is entitled to damages in the sum of $17,067 on the complaint.”
In challenging the calculation of contract damages, defendant contends the trial court had no reasonable basis to include sums attributable to additional monthly rental for the approximately seven-month period after the trailer was already restored to plaintiff’s possession. We agree. “[I]n the law of contracts the theory is that the party injured by breach should receive as nearly as possible the equivalent of the benefits of performance.” (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, § 869, p. 956.) However, “‘[d]amages must be reasonable … and the promisor is not required to compensate the injured party for injuries that he had no reason to foresee as the probable result of his breach when he made the contract. [Citations.]’” (Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 396, 409.) In other words, contract damages are limited to those within the contemplation of the parties or at least reasonably foreseeable by them at that time, and consequential damages beyond the expectation of the parties are not recoverable. (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 550; Civ. Code, § 3300; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 869-871, pp. 956-958.)
Here, under the circumstances of a month-to-month trailer rental where the lease was canceled and the trailer repossessed, the parties clearly would not have contemplated an ongoing (post-repossession) obligation to pay rent. The nature and terms of the agreement do not reasonably allow such an interpretation. Yet, the trial court’s written decision indicates it awarded such additional rental damages. In light of this error appearing on the face of the record, we will reverse the damage award and remand to allow the trial court to properly calculate breach of contract damages.
Defendant also contends that the trial court may have improperly awarded tort or punitive damages in regard to the contract claim. This contention is wholly unsupported, and we will disregard it. Further, it is clear from the court’s ruling that only breach of contract damages were being awarded.
DISPOSITION
The damage award is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate such damages in a manner consistent with the opinions expressed herein. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Defendant is entitled to costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J.