The plaintiff obtained an ex parte order for the interim recovery of personal property (geosynthetic clay liner and related materials) after the defendant failed to pay a $30,006 invoice that included a retention of title clause.
The defendant moved to set aside the order, arguing the property was defective, had already been installed, and that the seized property belonged to a third party.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the plaintiff met the 'substantial grounds' test for interim recovery of chattels, but amended the order to allow the defendant to recover the property by paying the invoice amount into court as security.
