to the property’s fair market value on the date of the foreclosure sale. Specifically, the statute provides that “[c]ompetent evidence” of the property’s fair market value “may include” evidence of “the necessity and amount of any discount to be applied to the future sales price or the cashflow generated by the property to arrive at a current fair market value.” Id,. The statute thus permits the fact-finder to consider “the future sales price” only within the context of evidence regarding “the necessity and amount of any discount to be applied to [that price] ... to arrive at a current fair market value.” I thus disagree with the Court’s conclusions that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by calculating the property’s fair market value using the $5 .W.2d 30, 31 (Tex.1976) (<HOLDING>); Pollack v. Pollack, 39 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Tex.
holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding that the proper measure of compensation in a temporary taking is the rental value that probably could have been obtained holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed