Price v. That Certain 2000 Rolls Royce Corniche Vin No. Cazk29e3YCX68097

• Decision Date: 03 September 2014
• Docket Number: B250494
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DONALD B. PRICE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THAT CERTAIN 2000 ROLLS ROYCE CORNICHE VIN NO. CAZK29E3YCX68097, Defendant, CHARLES A. SWACK, Defendant and Appellant.

DONALD B. PRICE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THAT CERTAIN 2000 ROLLS ROYCE CORNICHE VIN NO. CAZK29E3YCX68097, Defendant,CHARLES A. SWACK, Defendant and Appellant.

B250494

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

September 3, 2014

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC108084)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard A. Stone, Judge. Affirmed.

Miles Archer Woodlief for Plaintiff and Respondent Donald B. Price.

Pollak, Vida & Fisher, Michael M. Pollak and Daniel P. Barer, for Defendant and Appellant Charles A. Swack.

A Florida car dealer purported to sell or transfer the same Rolls Royce to two unrelated individuals, Donald Price and Charles Swack. After Price took possession of the car it was impounded in California. Price filed an in rem complaint for "turn over, quiet title, [and] declaratory relief." Swack cross-complained for conversion, replevin, and quiet title. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded Swack was the rightful owner of the car, but the court rejected his claim for damages. On appeal, Swack challenges the trial court ruling denying him loss of use damages in connection with his replevin claim. We find no error and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 2009, Swack purchased a 2000 Rolls Royce Corniche (the Corniche) from Cars Internationale, a Florida dealership, for $120,000.¹ Swack drafted a list of items that needed to be fixed on the Corniche; Cars Internationale was to keep the car and make the necessary repairs before delivering possession to Swack. Swack received a bill of sale and he insured the car. In February 2010, when Swack went to Cars Internationale to check on the car, he discovered the dealership had not done any of the required work. Although Swack drove the Corniche and kept it over the weekend, he returned it so the repairs could be made. In April 2010, someone from the dealership called Swack and told him the car was missing. Swack demanded the dealership get the car back or return his money. Eventually Swack reported the car stolen to the Fort Lauderdale police and his insurance company. At the end of April 2010, Swack learned the car was listed for sale on eBay, by a seller in Van Nuys. Swack contacted the Fort Lauderdale police again; law enforcement in California confiscated the car.

As it turned out, in November 2009, Cars Internationale was also dealing with Price. In November 2009, Price agreed to sell a 2000 Rolls Royce Silver Seraph through the dealership on consignment. After selling the car, Cars Internationale owed Price $60,000. Price was told the dealership was waiting for the money to pay him.Several weeks passed. While Price was waiting to be paid, one of the dealership principals, Danny Swan, offered to sell Price a 2002 Rolls Royce Silver Seraph. Price agreed to buy the 2002 Silver Seraph and paid Cars Internationale an additional $16,500. However, in December 2009, after Price took possession of the 2002 Silver Seraph, Swan called Price to report there were problems with the title on the car. Swan represented that the DMV needed to inspect the car personally. Price also wanted Cars Internationale to make a few repairs on the car, so he allowed the dealership to take it back. The dealership never returned the 2002 Silver Seraph. Price was told the dealership was unable to secure "clean title" on the car and it would refund his money. However, the dealership did not refund the money. In January 2010, the dealership issued Price a check for over $75,000 and asked him to wait a few days before depositing it. After a few days, Price called the issuing bank and learned the bank would not honor the check.

At trial, Price testified that by February 2010, he was concerned about the situation but thought it might be remedied. Swan suggested Price might be interested in the Corniche. Price agreed to buy the Corniche, even though he preferred to have his money back. Cars Internationale gave Price the title to the Corniche, but Price did not take possession of the car for several months. Price testified he was still hoping to get his money back.

However, the evidence at trial established that in mid-February 2010, Price sent the dealership an e-mail asserting it had engaged in "criminal fraud." According to the e-mail, Cars Internationale sold Price's 2000 Silver Seraph and received money for it; "traded him into" a 2002 Silver Seraph and collected $16,450 from him; took the 2002 Silver Seraph back and never returned it; returned the 2002 Silver Seraph to the original owner without Price's approval; wrote him a bad refund check for $75,840; and when Price demanded a refund, the dealership gave him title to the 2000 Corniche and a bill of sale in the amount of $76,000 "as security for the soon return of my money." The e-mail asserted three weeks had passed and $76,000 had not been deposited in Price's attorney's trust account, as the dealership had promised. Price demanded that the dealership either return his money or immediately deliver the 2000 Corniche to him.

In March 2010, a Cars Internationale mechanic alerted Price that the dealership was attempting to sell the Corniche. Price then took possession of the car. Price turned the Corniche over to another dealer or reseller who gave him $60,000 for the car.² The reseller transferred the Corniche to another party to attempt a retail sale. Within a few weeks, police had impounded the car in California.

In April 2010, Price filed a complaint against Cars Internationale, Swan, and related individuals. In May 2010, Price filed an in rem complaint for "turn over," quiet title, and declaratory relief. Price sought a judicial declaration that he was the lawful owner of the car. Subsequently, Price sought and received a trial court order releasing the Corniche to Price's counsel. In early June 2010, Swack filed a cross-complaint in the in rem action, alleging causes of action for conversion and quiet title. Swack filed an amended complaint later that month which included a claim for replevin. After Price's failure to post a bond so that the Corniche could remain in his counsel's custody, the car was instead stored at a "neutral party storage facility." The parties filed competing motions for summary adjudication regarding ownership of the Corniche. According to representations made in Swack's motion, "[c]ounsel agreed that they would file cross-motions for summary adjudication to be heard July 29, 2010, and that the side that then prevails will take possession of the car." After the court granted Price's motion for summary adjudication, it declared Price the owner of the Corniche, but upon Swack's motion for an order restraining Price from selling the car until a motion for reconsideration was heard, the court issued an order restraining any sale of the car. In September 2010, the parties agreed Price would store the Corniche. In November 2010, the trial court granted Swack's motion for reconsideration and denied both motions for summary adjudication.

The court conducted a bench trial in late January 2013. Both Price and Swack sought a determination of the ownership of the car. Swack additionally sought $594,000 in loss of use damages, calculated as the reasonable rental value of the Corniche for 33 months.³ In a written ruling, the trial court concluded Swack was a bona fide purchaser of the Corniche in November 2009, and was the car's legal owner. As to Price, the court found the evidence established Price was on notice of Swan's willingness to lie and cheat customers, including Price. The court reasoned that based upon Price's knowledge "at the time he interrupted the sale of the [Corniche] to a different purchaser, and took possession himself to cover [Cars Internationale's] debt to him, the court finds that Price was not an 'innocent' bona fide purchaser for value, so the car belongs to Swack."

However, the court rejected Swack's claim of "damages for Replevin based upon his inability to use his car for the last 3 years while this case has been in litigation." The court explained: "Mr. Price did not possess the car when the case was initiated. In fact, the case was originally set to allow Mr. Price to recover the car that had been impounded due to the theft report. From that moment on, the court has been in constructive possession of the vehicle. Although Mr. Price has better access to the car, neither side has been entitled to use or operate the vehicle while it has been in the court's possession." The court entered judgment for Swack and further ordered: "The plaintiff [Price] is ordered to release the vehicle to Mr. Swack as part of the judgment at a mutually convenient time, but no later than March 31, 2013. All previously imposed conditions remain, until Mr. Swack takes possession of the vehicle." Swack timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. The Trial Court Rejected Swack's Replevin Claim and Did Not Err in Denying Related Damages

Swack's sole argument on appeal is the trial court erred in refusing to award him loss of use damages in connection with his replevin claim, which he now calculates as$846,000. Swack asserts the trial court ruled in his favor on his replevin claim, but improperly declined to award him commensurate damages to which he was entitled. Price counters that the court did not, in fact, find Swack prevailed on the replevin claim. We conclude the trial court rejected Swack's replevin claim.

Florida law provides a statutory claim for replevin. Under Florida Statute section 78.01, "[a]ny person whose personal property is wrongfully detained by any other person or officer...