COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67662 CORRADO CONSTRUCTION CO. : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION PETROS HOMES, INC. : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : JULY 27, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-247868 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: DAVID A. CORRADO, ESQ. JON R. BURNEY, ESQ. Atrium Office Plaza, #535 A. DALE NATICCHIA, ESQ. 668 Euclid Avenue BURNEY & HERTHNECK CO., L.P.A. Cleveland, OH 44114 160 Plaza West Bldg. 20220 Center Ridge Road Rocky River, OH 44116 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Defendant-appellant, Petros Homes, Inc. appeals the trial court's judgment which found Petros in breach of contract with plaintiff-appellee, Corrado Construction Co., and awarded $7,687.50 in damages and interest to Corrado. The following facts were adduced at the bench trial. Corrado, a masonry company, entered into three separate contracts with Petros, a home building company, on September 5, 1991. The first contract was completely performed and was not an issue of the breach of contract claim. The second contract was for the completion of a brick veneer on a new home constructed by Petros for the price of $28,500. The third contract was for the construction of two chimneys at the cost of $12,500. Petros breached the second and third contracts by employing another mason to perform the work, however this is not an issue on appeal. The only issue is the amount of profit Corrado was entitled to as damages for breach of the contracts. Kenneth Corrado testified that because of Petros' breach of contract, his company lost $19,056.50 in profits, a profit margin of 46%. Corrado stated that this amount was based on the cost of labor and material needed to perform the two contracts. Carlo Chiuchiarelli, a mason qualified as an expert witness testified on behalf of Petros. Chiuchiarelli had bid on the same project and substantiated Corrado's calculations; however, he stated that the standard profit margin in the trade was - 3 - approximately 15%, yielding a total gross lost profit of $6,445. John Chandler, an expert for Petros testified that he thought the profit margin on a masonry contract would typically run between 10% to 20%. The trial court found that Petros had breached the contract and that as a result of the breach Corrado's lost profits were $6,150.50, or 15% of the contract price. The court further found that Corrado was entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,537.50, or 10%, and that such interest should be calculated from January 1, 1992, the date upon which payment should have been made, up until July 1, 1994, the date of the decision. Petros' first assignment of error states: I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING A FLAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CONTRACT PRICE FOR BRICK VENEER AND TWO CHIMNEYS TO PLAINTIFFS AS "REASONABLE PROFIT" WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO PROVE WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT SUCH PERCENTAGE AMOUNTED TO ITS LOST PROFITS. Petros maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a flat percentage of the contract price for the two contracts because Corrado failed to present any evidence to prove with reasonable certainty that such percentage amounted to its lost profits. Specifically, Petros asserts that Corrado failed to produce any evidence to prove the amount of profit it lost and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a flat percentage of the contract price as profit lost by Corrado. - 4 - Initially, we note that the standard of review is not abuse of discretion as Petros sets forth, but rather sufficiency of the evidence. Next, we address the law with respect to a plaintiff proving lost damages in a breach of contract claim. In Charles R. Combs Trucking, Inc. v. International Harvester Co. (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 241, paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held the following: "Lost profits may be recovered by the plain- tiff in a breach of contract action if: (1) profits were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made, (2) the loss of profits is the probable result of the breach of contract, and (3) the profits are not remote and speculative and may be shown with reasonable certainty." "Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence." C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus. Applying Combs and C.E. Morris to the present case we conclude that all three elements were met. After a thorough review of the record, we find that competent, credible evidence showed that (1) profits were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made; (2) the loss of profits was the result of the breach of contract and (3) the profits were shown with reasonable certainty. Both Petros's experts testified a reasonable - 5 - profit was approximately 15%, hence, Petros' own evidence supported the judgment. Accordingly, Petros' first assignment of error is overruled. Petros' second assignment of error states: II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON THE COURT'S DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE PROFITS SINCE SUCH AMOUNT WAS CLEARLY IN DISPUTE AND WAS NOT A LIQUIDATION SUM. Petros claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest on the court's determination of reasonable profits since such amount was clearly in dispute and was not a liquidation sum. Specifically, Petros maintains that pre- judgment interest is not applicable to an award of damages that could not be readily ascertained prior to trial. A trial court is permitted to award prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum pursuant to R.C. 1343.03. Pre- judgment interest will not be denied, where the amount is capable of ascertainment by mere computation, or is subject to reasonably certain calculations. Ford v. Tandy Transp., Inc. (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 364. The facts in the present case clearly show that the amount in controversy was capable of ascertainment by calculations. Accord- ingly, we find that prejudgment interest was properly granted. Therefore, Petros' second assignment of error is overruled. Corrado claims that appellant's appeal is frivolous and requests appellant to pay its expenses pursuant to App.R. 23. "A - 6 - frivolous appeal under App.R. 23 is essentially one which presents no reasonable question for review." Talbott v. Fountas (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 226. In the present case, we find a reasonable question for review with respect to the lost profits and the awarding of prejudgment interest. Accordingly, Corrado's request for expenses is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. BLACKMON, J. HARPER, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .