Wondimu Borena v. Jason Jacocks
M2016-00449-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 12, 2017Background
- Borena bought a rebuilt 2012 Honda Odyssey (totaled previously) and later took it to Greenleaf Collision for tailgate repairs; Greenleaf gave an initial written estimate of $5,267.30.
- Greenleaf later informed Borena the cost increased to $9,489.20; Borena paid a total of $5,500 but refused to pay the higher amount.
- Greenleaf sent (or allegedly sent) notice demanding $19,241.10 (repairs, storage, processing) and warned it would sell the vehicle if unpaid; Borena disputes receiving the notice.
- Greenleaf sold the vehicle on March 17, 2015 for $4,500; Borena sued for conversion and statutory violations (including a TCPA claim and violations of the mechanic/garage-lien statutes).
- Trial court found Greenleaf violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-19-104 (failed to provide/record consumer rights/consent), which abrogated its lien rights under § 66-19-103, ruled the sale an unauthorized conversion, and awarded Borena $10,000.
- Trial court dismissed Borena’s TCPA claim because the particular TCPA subsection he relied on (b)(27) vests enforcement exclusively in the attorney general; Borena appealed only the damages amount and some legal rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenleaf violated § 66-19-104 and converted the vehicle | Borena: Greenleaf failed to give statutorily required written notice/record of consent for repairs exceeding 25% of estimate, so lien rights were abrogated and the sale was conversion | Greenleaf: Had the right to sell because Borena did not pay the increased repair charges | Court: Affirmed — Greenleaf failed to comply with § 66-19-104, so lien rights were nullified and the sale was an unauthorized conversion |
| Whether $10,000 damages for conversion were insufficient | Borena: Award is less than his claimed damages/value and thus inadequate | Greenleaf: Trial court’s factual valuation is presumptively correct; sale was commercially unreasonable so sale price is not dispositive | Court: Affirmed — trial court’s valuation ($10,000) is within reason given vehicle history and competing testimony; no preponderance to overturn |
| Whether the TCPA claim was correctly dismissed | Borena: Proceeded under TCPA § 47-18-104(b)(27) (“catch-all”) as a private claim | Greenleaf: That subsection provides no private right; enforcement lies with the attorney general | Court: Affirmed dismissal — (b)(27) grants enforcement exclusively to the attorney general, so no private cause of action |
| Whether appeal is frivolous (attorney’s fees request) | N/A (Greenleaf sought fees) | Greenleaf: Appeal is frivolous and fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 are warranted | Court: declined — appeal not so devoid of merit to award frivolous-appeal damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed de novo with presumption of correctness)
- Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2013) (court’s goal is to effect legislative intent without broadening statute)
- Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles)
- In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005) (every word in a statute has meaning)
- Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. 2004) (apply plain meaning when statute is clear)
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants held to same rules as attorneys)
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Starkey, 244 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (damages in bench trial presumed correct absent preponderance)
- Lance Prods., Inc. v. Commerce Union Bank, 764 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (measure of damages for conversion is value at time and place of conversion)
- Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (award of frivolous-appeal damages is discretionary)
- Indus. Dev. Bd. v. Hancock, 901 S.W.2d 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (definition of frivolous appeal: ‘devoid of merit’)
- Adams v. Duncan Transfer & Storage of Morristown, 757 S.W.2d 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (owner is presumed to know value of owned property)