Capitol Chevrolet Co. v. Earheart
627 S.W.2d 369 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of accession, an innocent purchaser who, in good faith, adds labor and materials to a chattel that greatly enhances its value beyond its original state acquires title to the new product, but remains liable to the original owner for the value of the original chattel.
Facts:
- On May 1, 1975, a 1965 Chevrolet Corvette belonging to William T. Revis was stolen.
- The stolen vehicle was stripped down to its hull.
- W. A. Sartin, acting in good faith, purchased the stripped-down hull for $200.
- Sartin used his own labor and materials to rebuild the hull into a functioning Corvette automobile.
- Sartin sold the rebuilt Corvette, which was then sold through a chain of subsequent good-faith purchasers, eventually being acquired by Capital Chevrolet.
- Capital Chevrolet sold the vehicle to Dave Crass.
- The Corvette was stolen from Crass, recovered by the Atlanta police, and identified by the original hull's serial number.
- Police returned the vehicle to the original owner, William T. Revis.
Procedural Posture:
- Capitol Chevrolet sued its vendee, Dave Crass, and its vendor, Robert Earheart, in the Chancery Court.
- Crass filed a counter-complaint against Capitol Chevrolet.
- Third-party complaints were filed back up the chain of title to previous sellers.
- After a bench trial, the Chancellor (trial court judge) found that Sartin had acquired title by accession and that all subsequent purchasers acted in good faith.
- The Chancellor entered judgment in favor of Capitol Chevrolet against Crass.
- Capitol Chevrolet, as appellant, appealed the Chancellor's ruling on the issue of title to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
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 an innocent purchaser of a stolen item acquire title by accession when they, in good faith, add labor and materials that greatly enhance the item's value beyond its original, insignificant state?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
Yes. An innocent purchaser acquires title by accession when their labor and materials contribute more to the value of the chattel than the original materials taken. This rule applies where an innocent improver's additions greatly enhance the property's value, and the value of the original article is insignificant in comparison to the new product. The court found that Sartin was an innocent purchaser acting in good faith, as evidenced by his failure to alter or obliterate the vehicle's original identification number. Citing 'Ochoa v. Rogers' and 'Dunn v. Oneal,' the court reasoned that to achieve substantial equity, title passes to the good-faith improver, who is then liable to the original owner only for the market value of the property as it was when obtained—in this case, the $200 value of the stripped-down hull.
Concurring - Todd, P. J.
Yes, but with reservations. The author concurs in the result but expresses disagreement with the underlying principle that one can acquire title to an identifiable stolen part by accession. The concurrence argues that theft cannot deprive an owner of title, and forcing the owner to accept a monetary judgment instead of their property constitutes an unconstitutional taking. However, the author acknowledges that in this specific case, dismantling the vehicle to restore the original part is impractical. Therefore, while disagreeing with the broad application of accession to identifiable stolen goods, the author agrees with the practical outcome for the parties in this case, noting that the original owner's rights were not formally decided as he was not a party to the suit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the common law doctrine of accession to movable property (chattels) in Tennessee, particularly in the context of stolen goods improved by an innocent party. It establishes a balancing test based on the relative value of the original item versus the improvements, heavily weighing the good faith of the improver. The case creates a clear precedent that can divest a true owner of title in favor of an innocent improver, though it preserves the owner's right to compensation for the original item's value. This equitable approach creates a potential conflict between the absolute right to property and the goal of preventing unjust enrichment, a conflict highlighted by the concurring opinion.
