Justin N. O’Rourke

The plaintiff estate trustee sought damages for the conversion and damage of a vintage 1960 Corvette by the defendant, a former family friend who had offered to store the vehicle.

Following a partial judgment ordering the return of the vehicle and a directed reference that failed to properly assess damages, the court held a trial continuation.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that damages should be limited to the replacement cost of the vehicle, finding that the unique nature of the vehicle and the lack of comparable replacements justified an award based on the full cost of restoration.

The court also awarded aggravated damages due to the defendant's profound betrayal of trust and oppressive conduct.

The total damages were capped at the $200,000 limit of the Simplified Procedure.

A case conference was held regarding the moving party's motion to confirm a referee's report under Rule 54.08.

The court noted that the motion was not amenable to the scheduled 30-minute consent hearing, as the responding party intended to oppose confirmation and the referee had failed to follow the court's detailed instructions.

The parties agreed to vacate the scheduled hearing to discuss remaining disagreements, including claims for monetary damages for unreturned vehicle parts.

The court adjourned the motion sine die and directed a further case conference.

Following a partial judgment in a trial regarding the return of vehicles and parts, the court directed a reference to determine the plaintiff's remaining claims for monetary damages.

The parties agreed to appoint a specific referee.

The court rejected the parties' draft consent order as it improperly delegated judicial authority and failed to address referee remuneration and reporting procedures.

The court issued its own order directing the reference pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, outlining the specific issues to be determined, including damages for unreturned or damaged vehicles, and potential credits for improvements made by the defendant.

The plaintiff, acting as estate trustee, sought the return of five collector vehicles and parts belonging to the deceased's estate that had been stored at the defendant's property.

The defendant claimed he was owed storage and moving fees and had lawfully taken ownership of the vehicles pursuant to the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The court found that the defendant had originally offered his services gratuitously as a friend, meaning there was no contract and he did not qualify as a 'storer' or 'repairer' under the RSLA.

The court held the defendant liable for conversion and detinue, ordered the return of the vehicles to the estate, and directed a reference to determine any damages for missing parts or damage to the vehicles.