Aroma Wines & Equipment, Inc v. Columbian Distribution Services, Inc
497 Mich. 337
| Mich. | 2015Background
- Aroma Wines stored inventory in Columbian’s climate-controlled warehouse under a contract requiring 50–65°F and notice before transfers outside the complex; Columbian reserved intra-complex moving rights.
- Aroma fell behind on storage fees; Columbian asserted a lien, limited Aroma’s access, and moved Aroma’s wine from climate-controlled space to uncontrolled space.
- Aroma alleged the move was to rent the space to higher-paying customers and that temperature changes ruined the wine; Columbian said the move was temporary for renovation and expansion and denied extreme exposure.
- Aroma sued for breach of contract, UCC violation, common-law conversion, and statutory conversion under MCL 600.2919a(1)(a) (seeking treble damages); Columbian counterclaimed for unpaid rent.
- At close of Aroma’s case, Columbian won a directed verdict on the statutory-conversion count; the jury later found common-law conversion and breach of contract for Columbian and awarded damages to Aroma.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the directed verdict as to statutory conversion; the Michigan Supreme Court granted limited review to decide the meaning of “converting property to the other person’s own use” in MCL 600.2919a(1)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 600.2919a(1)(a) is coextensive with common-law conversion | Aroma: statutory language tracks common-law conversion, so the jury’s common-law conversion finding suffices for treble damages | Columbian: statute requires additional element — conversion must be use for the property’s ordinary or intended purpose (e.g., drinking or selling wine) | Not coextensive; statute requires conversion “to the other person’s own use,” meaning the defendant employed the property for a purpose personal to the defendant, not necessarily the property’s ordinary use |
| Proper definition of “own use” in § 2919a(1)(a) | Aroma: “use” can mean asserting dominion/control (e.g., using the wine as leverage), so broad application | Columbian: “use” should be limited to the property’s intended/common purpose | Court: “own use” requires employment of the property for some purpose personal to the converter, even if not the object’s ordinarily intended purpose |
| Whether directed verdict for Columbian on statutory conversion was proper given the evidence | Aroma: presented evidence (emails, restricted access, alleged refilling of space) permitting a jury to find use for Columbian’s purposes | Columbian: evidence showed only temporary relocation for renovations and no exposure to extreme conditions; insufficient to show convertible “use” | The trial court erred: evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide whether Columbian used the wine for its own purposes (e.g., to rent space, expand, or leverage) |
| Whether treble damages follow automatically from statutory conversion finding | Aroma: argued treble follows from statutory conversion | Columbian: (implicit) argued statutory standard not met; circuit court previously treated treble as discretionary | Court of Appeals noted treble damages are not automatically ordered on finding; Supreme Court’s limited review focused on definition of “own use” and remanded for further proceedings on statutory-conversion claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, Inc., 360 Mich 434 (definition of common-law conversion as an act of dominion)
- Kreiter v. Nichols, 28 Mich 496 (conversion to another’s use need not be for the object’s ordinary purpose)
- Daggett v. Davis, 53 Mich 35 (recognition that technical conversion may exist without active use)
- Kenney v. Ranney, 96 Mich 617 (sheriff’s unlawful seizure can constitute conversion separate from any personal use)
- Dep’t of Agriculture v. Appletree Mktg, LLC, 485 Mich 1 (statutory conversion § 2919a discussed as providing a remedy in addition to common law)