Grc Development, LLC v. New Acton Mobile Industries, LLC
2019 CA 001629
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- JMEG and Berkowitz (lessees) leased a mobile office trailer from New Acton; the trailer was delivered to property leased from GRC.
- JMEG/Berkowitz fell behind on payments to both GRC (landlord) and New Acton (trailer owner). New Acton sought to repossess the trailer when $1,148 in rent was owed.
- GRC refused to release the trailer, claiming a landlord’s lien on property located on its leased premises and later filed a counterclaim against New Acton asserting enforcement of that lien and alleging fraud.
- Trial court initially granted New Acton possession, then amended the order to require New Acton to post bond; New Acton posted bond.
- The case lay dormant; the court issued notice of potential dismissal for lack of prosecution. New Acton moved to dismiss GRC’s counterclaim and bond; the trial court granted dismissal under the summary-judgment standard and denied GRC’s motion to alter or amend.
- GRC appealed, arguing it had a valid landlord’s lien and other statutory rights to collect rent or prevent removal of the trailer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of landlord's lien on the trailer | GRC: KRS 383.070 gives landlord a lien on personal property on leased premises, so GRC could lien the trailer | New Acton: Trailer owned by New Acton and New Acton was not GRC's tenant or undertenant, so no lienable tenant property exists | Court: New Acton was not a tenant/undertenant; KRS 383.070 does not apply; no valid landlord's lien |
| Ability to prevent removal / charge rent under KRS 383.080(1) | GRC: Trailer could not be removed without paying past-due rent owed to landowner | New Acton: No landlord-tenant relationship existed, so KRS 383.080(1) inapplicable | Court: Statute inapplicable absent tenant/undertenant relationship; GRC could not block removal |
| Applicability of KRS 376.480 (lien for abandoned mobile homes) | GRC: Statute allows landowner lien for rent and costs where a trailer is abandoned on the land | New Acton: Trailer was not abandoned or occupied by New Acton; statute therefore inapplicable | Court: No evidence of abandonment or occupant status; statute does not support GRC's claim |
| Dismissal for lack of prosecution / summary judgment and denial of CR 59.05 motion | GRC: Factual disputes exist; counterclaims should proceed to jury; trial court erred in dismissal and in denying motion to alter/amend | New Acton: Case was dormant; dismissal under summary-judgment standard was proper; CR 59.05 relief not warranted | Court: No genuine issue of material fact as to legal relationship and lien; dismissal affirmed and CR 59.05 motion denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercantile Realty Co. v. Allen Edmonds Shoe Corp., 92 S.W.2d 837 (disallowing seizure of third-party property on premises for rent)
- Gullion v. Gullion, 163 S.W.3d 888 (standards/limited grounds for post-judgment CR 59.05 relief)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (standard of appellate review of summary judgment)
- Pinkston v. Audubon Area Cmty. Servs., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 188 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78 (issues not raised below are not preserved for appeal)
- Polley v. Allen, 132 S.W.3d 223 (judicial notice under Kentucky Rules of Evidence)