525 P.3d 117
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2012 Valter Nassi began using a basement storage unit (unit 3) in his condo complex after being told by a prior owner it was "his to use," secured it with a lock, and stored expensive and sentimental clothing (estimated ≥ $40,850).
- In 2018 Mark Hatsis bought a different condo in the complex; a prior owner told him unit 3 corresponded to his unit. Hatsis had the lock removed, found the clothes, believed they were old/abandoned (smelled of mothballs), and instructed his housekeeper to discard them; the items were thrown away.
- Nassi sued Hatsis for conversion, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and sought punitive damages. Hatsis moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it on all claims, finding Nassi had no legal right to unit 3 and Hatsis reasonably believed the items were abandoned.
- Nassi died during appeal and was substituted by his wife. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment as to conversion and trespass to chattels and punitive damages, and affirmed summary judgment on the IIED claim.
- The court held triable factual issues exist about whether Hatsis reasonably believed disposal was necessary and whether his conduct was wrongful; but even if wrongful, it did not meet Utah’s high IIED standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion & trespass to chattels | Nassi: Hatsis wrongfully exercised control and permanently deprived Nassi of property stored and locked in unit 3 | Hatsis: unit 3 was assigned to him and he reasonably believed the items were abandoned/toxic, so disposal was privileged | Reversed summary judgment — factual disputes on reasonableness/privilege preclude judgment as a matter of law; jury to decide |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Nassi: disposal of valuable, sentimental clothes inflicted severe emotional distress | Hatsis: conduct not aimed at Nassi and not extreme/outrageous | Affirmed summary judgment — conduct, though possibly unreasonable, was not sufficiently outrageous to meet IIED standard |
| Punitive damages | Nassi: punitive damages available if conversion was willful/reckless | Hatsis: punitive damages inappropriate because no IIED and conduct did not meet punitive statutory standard | Reversed dismissal of punitive damages — conversion can support punitive damages and district court applied an improper, extra-statutory requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Potter v. South Salt Lake City, 422 P.3d 803 (Utah 2018) (standard of review: de novo review of summary judgment)
- Jessup v. Five Star Franchising LLC, 515 P.3d 466 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (Rule 56 genuine-dispute standard)
- Heslop v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 390 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (when reasonable jurors could differ, summary judgment inappropriate)
- Kirkham v. Widdison, 447 P.3d 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (definition of conversion)
- Steinberg v. Community Housing Servs.-Capitol Villa, Ltd., 326 P.3d 673 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (conversion requires wrongful exercise of control)
- Darrington v. Wade, 812 P.2d 452 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (reasonableness questions are ordinarily for the jury)
- Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 423 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2017) (summary judgment only where reasonable minds cannot differ)
- Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (IIED two-part test; outrageousness requirement)
- Nguyen v. IHC Health Services, Inc., 232 P.3d 529 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (IIED conduct must evoke outrage or revulsion)
- Jackson v. Brown, 904 P.2d 685 (Utah 1995) (example of conduct meeting IIED standard)
- Mahana v. Onyx Acceptance Corp., 96 P.3d 893 (Utah 2004) (punitive damages may be based on conversion)
- Lawrence v. Intermountain, Inc., 243 P.3d 508 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (punitive damages discussion in conversion context)