Floyd Woodson filed an ejectment action against Outdoor Systems, Inc. Outdoor Systems based its defense on a lease it claimed gave it the right to maintain a billboard on Woodson’s property. A Fulton County jury found in Woodson’s favor, ordered Outdoor Systems to remove its billboard from the property, and awarded him damages of $100 for each month the company’s sign had remained on the property. The trial court entered judgment on that verdict, and Outdoor Systems appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding the case did not involve title to land, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to this Court. Held:
1. The trial court did not err when it denied Outdoor Systems’ motion for directed verdict in which the company contended Woodson failed to establish his title to the property. A directed verdict is proper only “[i]f there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). “In considering the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict.”
Roseberry v. Brooks, M.D.,
Woodson presented sufficient evidence of his ownership of the property to create an issue for the jury; he testified he owned the property by virtue of a warranty deed and called Outdoor Systems to remove the sign the same day he purchased it. Outdoor Systems did not object to this testimony. “Although [Woodson’s] deed may have been the best evidence of his ownership of the real estate in question[,] we cannot disregard the fact that [Woodson’s] testimony as to ownership, admitted without objection, is some evidence of his own
*902
ership sufficient to satisfy our any evidence requirement and thereby bar a directed verdict for [Outdoor Systems] based on this issue. [Cit.]”
Herston v. Locke,
Outdoor Systems’ argument that Woodson did not adequately show his ownership of the property because he did not show “good record title for a period of 40 years,” pursuant to OCGA § 44-2-22, is completely without merit. That statute, far from providing the sole means by which a party may prove ownership of land, merely supplies an evidentiary “shortcut” to proving ownership of land when two parties make adverse claims to it. See, e.g.,
Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank,
2. (a) Outdoor Systems was not entitled to a directed verdict on the question of damages, as Woodson did introduce some evidence on this issue. The parties stipulated that Outdoor Systems had offered Woodson $50 per month in rent, which he refused. This evidence gave the jury a sufficient basis on which to calculate an award of rent. “Questions of value are peculiarly for the determination of the jury, where there is any data in the evidence upon which the jury may legitimately exercise their own knowledge and ideas.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Cleaveland v. Alford,
Outdoor Systems was not entitled to a directed verdict on the basis that Woodson made no specific plea for damages in his complaint. As the company did not base its motion on that ground, it is waived. See
Grabowski v. Radiology Assoc.,
(b) The jury was not, however, entitled to award rent of $100 per month. “Where a party sues for specific damages he has the burden of showing the amount of loss claimed in such a way that the jury may calculate the amount of loss from the data furnished and will not be placed in a position where an allowance of the loss is based on guesswork. [Cit.]”
Studebaker Corp. v. Nail,
Because the jury’s award of $100 per month in rent is excessive, this error requires reversal for a new trial on the issue of damages only. See
Cowart v. Strickland,
3. In its next enumeration of error, Outdoor Systems argues the trial court erred by failing to limit Woodson’s claim for damages to those incurred between the date he purchased the property (April 15, 1993) and the date he filed suit (October 19, 1993). This enumeration, apparently based on an interpretation of OCGA § 51-9-6, has no merit. That statute, which does not apply here, limits claims for damages in cases of continuous trespass to those incurred before suit is filed because
subsequent damages give rise to a new cause of action.
But the ejectment statute, OCGA § 44-11-7, bars any separate suit for rents and profits flowing from the defendant’s possession of the property. Thus, “in an action of ejectment, mesne profits may be recovered up to the time of the final judgment. . . .”
Lankford v. Dockery,
4. Outdoor Systems complains of the trial court’s failure to admit into evidence a lease allegedly entered into between a company whose assets it purchased and the wife of the person from whom Woodson purchased this property. The trial court appears to have excluded this document for one or both of two reasons: 1) because Outdoor Systems could not show its relevance, in that the company could not show this lease bound Woodson and Outdoor Systems;
andJ
or 2) because Outdoor Systems could not lay a proper foundation to admit what would otherwise be hearsay. Unfortunately, Outdoor Systems failed to include in the record a copy of this lease and failed to read its contents into the transcript. Neither has it complained of the court’s failure to admit other documents which it contends provided an evidentiary foundation for admitting the lease. “[Outdoor Sys
*904
terns] is required to show harm as well as error to prevail on appeal [cit.], and this [it] must show by the record as harm cannot be established by unsupported assertions contained in . . . briefs. [Cit.] The record in this case reflects that [Outdoor Systems] made no proffer as to the contents of the [lease], . . . Further, ... no attempt was made to identify [its] contents for [the] record and subsequent appellate purposes. Under these circumstances, [Outdoor Systems] has failed to show harm. . .
Hertz Corp. v. McCray,
5. Finally, Outdoor Systems alleges the trial court should have charged the jury on the “law of dispossession” rather than the law of ejectment. Its enumeration appears based on the Supreme Court’s order denying its motion for discretionary appeal, in which the Court found this action based on a claim to possession and not on a claim to title. Outdoor Systems v. Woodson, Case No. S95D1529 (decided July 14, 1995). This enumeration has no merit.
Woodson denied Outdoor Systems had any right to possess the property. He based his complaint in ejectment, seeking possession of his property from a party he contended wrongfully held it. These allegations state a cause of action for ejectment. See
Ingold, Inc. v. Adair,
Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with direction.