Poppe v. Stockert
2015 ND 252
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Poppes rented a house from Hillis for five years; eviction for unpaid rent was served Feb 4, 2013 and judgment entered requiring vacatur by Feb 20.
- Poppes were allowed five extra hours to move with a Welcome House truck; they vacated but left personal property behind.
- Hillis arranged for Community Blessings (Stockert) to pack, remove, and store remaining property; Poppes later sought return of property.
- Stockert demanded $4,600 for packing/moving/storage before return; Poppes did not pay and did not retrieve all property.
- Washer and dryer remained and were sold to new renters on May 20, 2013; litigation over conversion and related remedies ensued.
- District court granted Hillis/Stockert summary judgment; Poppes amended to seek exemplary damages; case appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hillis/Stockert could dispose of abandoned property without legal process under § 47-16-30.1. | Poppes contend the property valued at $8,000 exceeds the statutory disposal limit. | Hillis/Stockert argue the statute grants disposal rights and a lien without normal process. | Statute does not apply; requires special execution and value threshold not met; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether Hillis/Stockert had a statutory lien and could dispose of property after eviction without a foreclosure action. | Lien and disposal without foreclosure were improper given value and lack of special execution. | Statutory lien permitted disposal and recovery of costs within statutory framework. | Disposition without valid special execution violated the statute; district court erred |
| Whether the district court properly denied amendment to add exemplary damages claim. | Exemplary damages warranted due to oppressive/malicious conduct. | No lawful right of Poppes to property negates exemplary damages analysis at that stage. | On remand, Poppes may renew motion for exemplary damages |
| Whether discovery issues require Rule 56(f) relief before summary judgment, or moot on remand. | Additional discovery necessary to oppose summary judgment. | No need if evidence indicates no genuine issues of material fact. | Remand may render moot; if not, Rule 56(f) procedures apply with specifics |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers State Bank of Leeds v. Thompson, 372 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1985) (owner competent to testify to property value)
- Moriarty v. Dziak, 435 So.2d 35 (Ala. 1983) (landlord may be guilty of conversion if seizes property without process)
- Koch Oil Co. v. Hanson, 536 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 1995) (statutory interpretation; look to legislative intent)
- Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, 712 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 2006) (N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(f) requires specificity in discovery requests)
- Northern X-Ray Co., Inc. v. State By and Through Hanson, 542 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 1996) (interpretation of extrinsic aids in statute)
- John Deere Co. v. Nygard Equipment, Inc., 225 N.W.2d 80 (N.D. 1974) (exemplary damages available where oppression or malice shown in conversion)
- Remmick v. Mills, 165 N.W.2d 61 (N.D. 1968) (support for exemplary damages in conversion claims)