VanBuskirk v. Gibson
2019 Ohio 3353
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Rick VanBuskirk (plaintiff) operated Street Cars Unlimited, LLC; Vicki Gibson (defendant) was his romantic partner and a signer on the LLC bank account but was never made an owner or statutory agent.
- Gibson had access to and withdrew funds from a Civista Bank business account funded largely by VanBuskirk’s PERS cash‑out (~$76,000); she also loaned him $18,800 to satisfy divorce obligations.
- Relationship soured in August 2016; some vehicles kept on Gibson’s lot were reported damaged; VanBuskirk removed property from Gibson’s garage during a police‑supervised visit.
- VanBuskirk sued for replevin, conversion, injunctive relief, and damages; a magistrate awarded $9,106 in damages to VanBuskirk and the trial court adopted that decision after rejecting objections.
- On appeal, VanBuskirk argued the court erred by not finding conversion of numerous personal items and nearly $26,000 in bank funds; Gibson cross‑appealed challenging the sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence supporting the $9,106 award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding no conversion of most personal property | VanBuskirk: magistrate wrongly discredited his list of missing personal items and should have awarded conversion damages | Gibson: trial court properly credited her testimony and the magistrate reasonably accepted some items were returned or not proven missing | Court: Affirmed — factfinder credibility determinations supported; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Whether Gibson converted ~$26,000 from the LLC bank account | VanBuskirk: Gibson improperly withdrew/converted bank funds and did not return them | Gibson: she was an authorized signer; withdrawals were permitted or reimbursements for loans/expenses; no demand/refusal shown | Court: Affirmed — account access made withdrawals not clearly wrongful and plaintiffs failed to show required demand/refusal for conversion |
| Whether $9,106 damage award was against manifest weight of evidence (Gibson cross‑appeal) | Gibson: insufficient evidence to tie damages to her or to support amounts awarded | VanBuskirk: evidence of timing, access, and motive supported award | Court: Affirmed — magistrate’s reasoning (timing, location, access, credibility) supported damages for vehicle damage, missing titles, and small items |
| Proper measure and proof for conversion damages | VanBuskirk: market/value losses and missing titles justify conversion damages | Gibson: offsets and distributions of cars/bank deposits reduce or negate claimed losses | Court: Applied conversion law; offset calculations accepted; award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review of factual findings)
- Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 551 N.E.2d 172 (Ohio 1990) (definition of conversion as wrongful dominion over another’s property)
- Ohio Telephone Equip. & Sales, Inc. v. Hadler Realty Co., 24 Ohio App.3d 91 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (conversion demand/refusal elements apply when original taking was rightful)
- DeHass (State v. DeHass), 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- State v. Cola, 602 N.E.2d 730 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (credibility determinations need not be all‑or‑nothing)