219 N.C. App. 540
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2006, Vaseleniuck Engine Development and Sabertooth Motorcycles contracted for services, delivery, and setup of fifty engines; defendant paid $231,658.50 in total and received 15 engines, with 35 remaining in plaintiff's possession.
- Plaintiff asserted a possessory lien on the remaining engines under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-1 after attempting to hold the property; plaintiff also sold three engines at auction after requesting a judicial hearing was denied.
- Plaintiff filed suit on January 13, 2010 for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices, contending a valid lien allowed retention of the remaining engines and property.
- Defendant answered February 23, 2010 asserting breach, lien statute violations, claim and delivery, conversion/trespass to chattels, and UDAP, and asserted personal liability claims and attorney fees.
- Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on § 44A-4 claims, which the trial court granted on November 8, 2010.
- In February 2011, Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on conversion, claim and delivery, UDAP, and § 57C-3-30; the court granted as to conversion and denied the others on April 4, 2011; plaintiff appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 § 44A-4(g) order should have gone to a jury | Evidence raises factual issue on substantial compliance; jury should decide. | Evidence supports issue as a matter of law. | Order reversed; jury issue required. |
| Whether the 2011 order on conversion/trespass to chattels was proper | Plaintiff has a valid possessory lien; issues of lien validity preclude summary judgment. | No genuine issue; lien invalid or possession unauthorized supports judgment. | Order reversed and case remanded for trial on lien issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drummond v. Cordell, 73 N.C.App. 438 (1985) (jury to decide factual issues on § 44A-4 when inferences exist)
- Fordham v. Eason, 351 N.C. 151 (1999) (trespass to chattels requires unauthorized interference)
- Peed v. Burleson's, Inc., 244 N.C. 437 (1956) (conversion defined as unauthorized exercise of ownership over another's goods)