Hildenbrand v. Capital RV Center, Inc., 2011 ND 37

Background

In Oct 2008 Hildenbrand traded his 2007 Paradise Point fifth wheel toward a larger RV with Capital and signed a Retail Order for a Monaco motor home valued at $125,211, with cash and a camper as consideration.
The Retail Order included notations for Pre delivery inspection, 5-TIRES, and PAINTWORK, the latter allegedly obligating Capital to repair paint damage from a blown tire.
Capital buffed the damaged area but did not repaint the Monaco, and Hildenbrand later sought painting of the bottom 2–3 feet as part of paintwork.
Hildenbrand later learned paintwork was not completed; discussions and a request to rescind followed Capital’s refusal to return the camper.
Hildenbrand filed suit in Dec 2008, asserting conversion; Capital answered and sought enforcement of the contract or damages; after discovery, summary judgment was denied and trial proceeded.
A jury found no breach of contract by Capital, and the district court ordered Hildenbrand to surrender title and possession of the camper to Capital; post-trial motions were denied and the judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Capital breach the contract by not performing paintwork?	Hildenbrand argues paintwork was required by the Retail Order.	Capital contends the term paintwork was not obligated to include bottom-of-camper painting or was otherwise ambiguous.	No contract breach; jury verdict stands.
Was conversion defeated by Capital's asserted contract rights to possession?	Conversion claim survives if Capital wrongfully possessed the camper.	Capital possessed the camper as partial payment under a contract and thus had a defense to conversion.	Judgment upholding Capital's possession/ownership affirmed.
Did the court abuse its discretion by not asking which party was entitled to possession in a special verdict?	A specific question on possession should have been submitted to the jury.	No abuse; existing contract issues and general questions were adequate for the jury.	No abuse; district court properly refused.
Did the jury need a meeting-of-the-minds instruction to determine mutual assent on paintwork?	The term paintwork required mutual assent on its meaning.	The contract instructions adequately conveyed mutual assent without a separate meeting-of-the-minds query.	Adequate instructions; no error in not asking a meeting-of-the-minds question.

Key Cases Cited

Dickinson v. First Nat’l Bank, 64 N.D. 273 (1933) (claim-delivery and possessory actions distinguished)
More v. Western Grain Co., 31 N.D. 369 (1915) (conversion vs possession distinction)
Bernhardt v. Rummel, 314 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1981) (conversion typically requires property interest at the time)
Miller v. National Elevator Co., 32 N.D. 352 (1915) (distinction between conversion and possessory claims)
Steidl v. Aitken, 152 N.W. 276 (1915) (reiterates conversion/possession framework)
Ulledalen v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 23 N.W.2d 856 (1946) (law of the case and non-duplication of actions context)
Jacobson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 11 N.W.2d 442 (1943) (avoidance of split causes of action)
Napoleon Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Rohrich, 406 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 1987) (contractual entitlement to possession in conversion context)
Ritter, Laber & Assocs., Inc. v. Koch Oil, Inc., 680 N.W.2d 634 (N.D. 2004) (coexistence of contract and tort claims)
Grager v. Schudar, 770 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2009) (proper jury instruction on contract concepts)
Harrington v. Harrington, 365 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1985) (equitable relief when pleadings give notice)
Aho v. Maragos, 605 N.W.2d 161 (N.D. 2000) (equitable relief when appropriate despite pleadings)
First Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. Scherr, 456 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 1990) (broad prayer for relief can authorize equitable remedy)
United Accounts, Inc. v. Larson, 121 N.W.2d 628 (N.D. 1963) (scope of relief under pleadings and 8(c) caveat)
Dewing, 498 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. Ct. App. 1993) (equitable relief compatible with pleadings)