189 So. 3d 1189
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Santo A. Dileo sued his sister (Dottie Boudreaux) and former girlfriend (Connie Slaven Horn) for conversion of an entertainment center, two chairs, and two rugs that he alleged he owned and that were removed from Horn’s home in Jan. 2011.
- Defendants contended Dileo had abandoned the items; the trial court earlier denied defendants’ exception of no right of action and found Dileo did not abandon the property.
- At trial the court found conversion occurred, entered judgment jointly and in solido for $6,134.72, and explained it computed damages by starting with purchase prices, then subtracting 20% depreciation and 20% for plaintiff’s comparative fault.
- Dileo appealed, arguing (inter alia) comparative fault cannot reduce damages for an intentional tort of conversion, that damages were undervalued and that general damages and costs should have been awarded.
- Boudreaux appealed various interlocutory evidentiary rulings, the denial of her exception of no right of action, the preclusion of unrelated reconventional claims, and the trial court’s failure to apportion fault between co-defendants.
- The appellate court (1) held conversion is an intentional tort and comparative-fault reductions do not apply; (2) recalculated special damages at $7,668.40 (purchase price less 20% depreciation); (3) apportioned fault 70% to Boudreaux and 30% to Horn; and (4) reversed the preclusion of Boudreaux’s reconventional claim for storage fees unrelated to the main demand and remanded for that limited presentation of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the abandonment finding erroneous? | Dileo: he retained ownership; trial court previously found no abandonment. | Boudreaux: trial court manifestly erred; Dileo abandoned the items. | No reversible error on abandonment — record transcript of the exception hearing was not in the appellate record, so prior judgment is presumed correct. |
| 2) May comparative fault reduce damages for conversion? | Dileo: conversion is an intentional tort; La. C.C. art. 2323(C) bars reducing recovery for plaintiff’s negligence. | Defendants: conduct was not intentional wrongdoing; comparative fault may apply. | Court: conversion is an intentional tort; it was legal error to apply comparative fault. Reduced damages for plaintiff were reversed. |
| 3) Appropriate measure and amount of special damages? | Dileo: award should be replacement cost per his expert (approx. $23,106). | Boudreaux: trial court valuation (purchase price adjusted) reasonable; plaintiff failed to prove replacement value or appreciation. | Trial court’s refusal to award new replacement cost was not manifestly erroneous; appellate court used total purchase price ($9,585.50) less 20% depreciation = $7,668.40. |
| 4) Reconventional claims, evidentiary rulings, and apportionment between defendants | Dileo: requested general damages and costs; Boudreaux sought to present unrelated storage fees and other evidence (some excluded). | Boudreaux: reconventional claims should be allowed; excluded hearsay was admissible. | Court reversed exclusion only as to permitting reconventional claim for unrelated storage fees (La. C.C.P. art. 1061(A) allows it), affirmed evidentiary exclusions (hearsay, proffer inadequate), and apportioned fault 70% Boudreaux / 30% Horn; remanded for reconventional proof limited to storage fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.G. Bruschweiler (Antiques) Ltd. v. GBA Great British Antiques, L.L.C., 860 So.2d 644 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (conversion defined as intentional dominion over another’s goods)
- Dual Drilling Co. v. Mills Equipment, 721 So.2d 853 (La. 1998) (measure of damages in conversion is value at time of conversion; new replacement cost improper)
- Broussard v. Lovelace, 610 So.2d 159 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (damages for conversion not reduced by plaintiff’s contributory negligence)
- Hebert v. First Guar. Bank, 493 So.2d 150 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (comparative fault inapplicable to intentional torts such as conversion)
- Aymond v. Dept. of Revenue & Taxation, 672 So.2d 273 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (good faith acquisition is not a defense to conversion)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard of review for factual findings — manifest error)
- Stobart v. State through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (where two reasonable views exist, factfinder’s choice cannot be manifestly erroneous)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (appellate courts may redetermine facts de novo where trial court committed reversible legal error)