Brook v. James A. Cullimore & Co.
1967 OK 251, 1967 Okla. LEXIS 625, 436 P.2d 32 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a replevin action, the primary object is the recovery of specific personal property, and a defeated litigant who retained possession under a redelivery bond does not have an option to pay the property's value and keep it against the will of the successful party; the statutory alternative money judgment is solely for the benefit of the successful party and only applies when the property cannot be returned.
Facts:
- James A. Cullimore & Co. (Cullimore) claimed a special interest in multiple items of personal property, asserting this interest was by virtue of a chattel mortgage securing a note for $8,147.26.
- Edward E. Brook (Brook) was in possession of this personal property.
- Cullimore's petition and affidavit for replevin stated the aggregate value of the property was $2,500.00.
- Brook asserted that the property whose possession was demanded could not be delivered "in substantially the same condition as at the time of filing of this action."
- The property was later determined to be of substantial value and was available for delivery, not being worthless or materially deteriorated.
- Cullimore was willing to accept the return of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- James A. Cullimore & Co. (Cullimore) initiated a replevin action against Edward E. Brook (Brook) in a trial court, seeking immediate possession of specific personal property or, in the alternative, its stated value of $2,500.00, plus attorney's fees.
- Brook, after the suit commenced, provided a redelivery bond, allowing him to retain possession of the property.
- Brook later offered to confess judgment for the alleged value of the property ($2,500.00) and the requested attorney's fees ($1,160.44), depositing these sums with the court clerk.
- Cullimore refused Brook's offer to confess judgment and filed a motion requesting a hearing to determine if the property was available for delivery and to secure a judgment for immediate possession.
- At the hearing, Brook renewed his offer to confess a money judgment, contending the property could not be delivered in the same condition as when the action began.
- The trial court determined that the issues to be tried were whether the property could be delivered by Brook in substantially the same condition and to ascertain the amount of attorney's fees.
- The trial court issued a judgment requiring Brook to deliver the property to Cullimore, authorized Brook to withdraw his deposits, and did not render an alternative money judgment against Brook.
- Brook, as plaintiff in error, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defeated litigant in a replevin action, who remains in possession of the property under a redelivery bond, have the right to elect to retain the property and satisfy the judgment by tendering its value, against the will of the successful party?
Opinions:
Majority - McINERNEY, Justice
No, a defeated litigant in a replevin action does not have the right to elect to retain the property and satisfy the judgment by tendering its value against the will of the successful party. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the primary objective of statutory replevin is the recovery of specific personal property, not money. While 12 O.S. 1961 § 1580 provides for an alternative money judgment, this remedy is cumulative and intended solely for the benefit of the successful litigant, to be pursued only if possession of the property cannot be obtained. The statute, adopted from Kansas law, is construed such that if the return of the property is possible, it must be returned. The successful plaintiff's alternative prayer for value in the affidavit does not constitute an election to accept money damages, nor does it grant the defeated defendant the power to pay the property's value and retain it. The court noted that Cullimore did not elect to accept a money judgment, nor did he adduce proof of the property's value. The defeated party has an affirmative duty to return the property in substantially the same condition, and if the property has substantial value and is available, the successful party has a right to insist on its return. To deny the successful party this right would convert the replevin action into a forced sale, which is contrary to its purpose.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the fundamental nature of a replevin action under Oklahoma law, emphasizing that its primary purpose is the recovery of specific property rather than monetary compensation. It establishes that the statutory provision for an alternative money judgment is a remedy for the successful party only, designed for situations where property cannot be returned. This ruling prevents defeated defendants from unilaterally converting a replevin action into a forced sale of the property, thus protecting the plaintiff's right to the specific chattel. Future cases will rely on this precedent to ensure that courts prioritize the return of property over monetary awards in replevin unless the successful party expressly elects otherwise or return is impossible.
