Sumrell v. Household Finance Corp.

• Citation: 443 P.2d 179,250 Or. 381
• Parties: Robert W. SUMRELL, Respondent, v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., a corporation, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 26 June 1968
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 179

443 P.2d 179

250 Or. 381

Robert W. SUMRELL, Respondent, v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., a corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.

Argued and Submitted March 7, 1968.

Decided June 26, 1968.

Richard D. Nelson, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

William F. Thomas, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Raymond J. Conboy, and Thomas, Conboy & Leahy, Portland.

Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.

HOLMAN, Justice.

This is an action for actual and punitive damages for the conversation of an automobile. Defendant appealed from that portion of a judgment awarding punitive damages. The following are the facts stated in a manner most favorable to plaintiff as is proper after judgment.

The defendant was a judgment creditor of Mrs. Michael Peckron. On October 8, 1966, Mrs. Peckron sold the automobile in question to plaintiff. Plaintiff mailed the documents of title with a request for transfer to the State Department of Motor Vehicles on October 14. The documents of title were received by the Department of Motor Vehicles on the 18th. The Department treats the receipt of the documents as the effective date of transfer. Pursuant to a request by defendant the Department erroneously issued a certificate on the 19th that its records showed Mrs. Peckron as the owner of the vehicle. On October 25 the vehicle was seized by the defendant under a writ of execution at the home of Mrs. Peckron where plaintiff was also living.

As the seizure was being carried out by the constable and before the vehicle was taken away, plaintiff appeared on the scene and talked on the telephone to defendant's attorney. Plaintiff told the attorney that he, plaintiff, was the owner of the automobile and that he had recently purchased it from Mrs. Peckron. He also informed defendant's attorney that he had mailed the title papers to the Department of Motor Vehicles on October 14 for transfer of the title into his name. He was trying to find out if he could get the attorney to hold the execution or run another check on the title. The attorney told plaintiff that he was going to take the vehicle anyway, but that if plaintiff owned it he could file a third party claim. He also stated he thought plaintiff did not own the truck and that there had been 'hanky-panky' between plaintiff and Mrs. Peckron. He 'talked kind of rank' and also said: 'Well, Bub, we'll see you in court.'

On the same day or the day following, plaintiff telephoned defendant's Portland manager and told him that plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle and demanded its return by noon the next day. The manager told plaintiff that he was familiar with the circumstances involving the seizure of the vehicle and refused to return it to plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this action on the next day or the day following. The vehicle was subsequently sold by defendant at a constable's sale.

Defendant's principal assignment of error contends that the trial court was mistaken in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury because there was insufficient evidence to sustain such submission. This raises a question which continues to plague this court. What is the basis for the allowance of punitive damages? In Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., Or., 435 P.2d 306 (1967), this court used the following language:

'Punitive damages can only be justified on the theory of determent. See Hodel, The Doctrine of Exemplary Damages in Oregon, 44 Or.L.Rev. 175 (1965). It is only in those instances where the violation of societal interests is sufficiently great and of a kind that sanctions would tend to prevent, that the use of punitive damages is proper. * * *'

The application of this general philosophy to the factual situation, is, as always, not without difficulty.

At the time of the seizure of the vehicle defendant was aware of plaintiff's claim that he owned it and that plaintiff claimed to have mailed the documents for change of title to plaintiff to the Department of Motor Vehicles on the 14th of October. Defendant also knew that the Department of Motor Vehicles on the 19th of October, after the documents of title would have been received by the Department in the normal course of the mails, reported that the vehicle was registered to Mrs. Peckron. Defendant was also aware that the vehicle was found by the constable at Mrs. Peckron's home. Plaintiff claims that under these...