CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a right to attach order issued in favor of CIT Group after Super DVD defaulted on a commercial equipment lease. The court held that the lease provided a sufficiently clear and definite basis for calculating damages under California Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, even though the ultimate amount was not stated on the face of the contract. The court also rejected challenges concerning CIT's selected remedies, present-value calculation, and the commercial reasonableness of the equipment sale.

Holdings

1. A claim for damages arising from a lease of real or personal property may support attachment under Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, subdivision (a), even if the damages are unliquidated and the precise amount was not known when the contract was formed, provided the amount is readily ascertainable by reference to the contract and a reasonable, definite basis of computation exists.
2. The master lease and lease schedules provided a clear and definite formula for calculating the damages because they specified the monthly rent and rental period; therefore, the claimed amount was sufficiently ascertainable to support the Right to Attach Order.
3. The asserted defects in CIT's supporting declaration did not require reversal because the declaration stated that CIT had accelerated the unpaid rent, and the investment rate used to calculate present value appeared in the attached exhibits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a claim arising from a commercial equipment lease is subject to attachment under Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, subdivision (a), when the amount of damages was not fixed at the time the contract was executed.
2. Whether the lease documents and CIT's supporting declaration provided a sufficiently clear and definite basis for calculating the amount of the claimed deficiency.
3. Whether appellants' contentions concerning the selected contractual remedy, the investment rate used to calculate present value, and the commercial reasonableness of the equipment sale undermined the Right to Attach Order.

Disposition

affirmed