Prairie Supply, Inc. v. Apple Electric, Inc.
2015 ND 190
| N.D. | 2015Background
- In late 2011 Prairie Supply and Apple Electric made oral agreements for two Thawzall ground heaters (combined price $70,000); Apple took possession and made monthly payments.
- Apple had paid about $61,851.94 by July 1, 2012. Prairie repossessed the heaters on July 1, 2012, after late payments and sued to recover past due rental payments.
- At trial the district court found the agreements were purchase (not lease) agreements, Prairie’s repossession was wrongful conversion, and awarded Apple $61,851.94 plus 6% interest from July 1, 2012.
- Prairie moved for amended findings or a new trial arguing damages were excessive and no evidence established market value; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal Prairie raised multiple legal challenges (classification of the agreements, perfection of security interest, repossession conduct, conversion, waiver, and damages), but did not appeal the order denying the new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in awarding damages based on value at time of repossession (market value) | Prairie: Damages were excessive and unsupported; no evidence of actual market value at repossession | Apple: Judgment should stand; damages tied to conversion value are supported by evidence | Court: Preservation rule limits appeal to this damages issue; damages award (value $70,000 less amount paid $61,851.94) is supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Prairie may raise other trial errors (agreement classification, security interest, conversion, waiver) on appeal | Prairie: These errors were raised on appeal | Apple: Issues waived because not raised in new-trial motion | Court: Issues other than damages were waived on appeal because Prairie only argued damages and market-value in its new-trial motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cartier v. Northwestern Elec., Inc., 777 N.W.2d 866 (N.D. 2010) (preservation rule: issues raised in a new-trial motion limit appellate review)
- Meier v. Meier, 848 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 2014) (application of preservation rule where appeal is limited to issues presented in new-trial motion)
- Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1986) (discussing territorial origin and application of the rule limiting appeal to grounds presented in a new-trial motion)
- Peterbilt of Fargo, Inc. v. Red River Trucking, LLC, 864 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 2015) (damages findings are factual and reviewed under clearly erroneous standard)
- C & C Plumbing and Heating, LLP v. Williams Cnty., 848 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 2014) (standard for clearly erroneous factual findings)