Goolesby v. KOCH FARMS, LLC.
2006 Ala. LEXIS 280, 2006 WL 2925327, 955 So. 2d 422 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party with only a possessory interest in a chattel cannot maintain a cause of action for conversion against the chattel's true owner. Furthermore, a party to a contract cannot be held liable for the tort of intentional interference with that same contract.
Facts:
- In 1999, Buddy Goolesby and Koch Farms, LLC, entered into a three-year 'grower contract' for the Goolesbys to raise chickens on their farm.
- Under the contract, Koch Farms provided the chickens and retained legal title to them, while the Goolesbys were responsible for their care and for collecting eggs.
- The contract was scheduled to terminate in December 2002.
- On October 9, 2002, two months before the contract's expiration, Koch Farms delivered a new flock of chickens to the Goolesbys' farm.
- Shortly thereafter, Koch Farms presented the Goolesbys with a new proposed contract containing terms to which Tony Goolesby objected in handwritten notes.
- When the parties could not agree on the new contract terms, Koch Farms informed Tony Goolesby that it would remove the recently delivered flock unless he signed the new contract without modifications.
- Tony Goolesby subsequently met Koch Farms' representative, Ted New, at the farm's gate and refused to allow him to enter the property to remove the chickens.
Procedural Posture:
- Koch Farms, LLC, filed a complaint in the DeKalb Circuit Court (trial court) against the Goolesbys for recovery of chattels (the chickens) and breach of contract.
- The trial court granted Koch Farms' motion for a writ of seizure, and the sheriff removed the chickens from the Goolesbys' farm.
- The Goolesbys answered and filed counterclaims against Koch Farms, alleging conversion, breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, and other torts.
- The trial court denied the Goolesbys' motion to dissolve the writ of seizure.
- At the conclusion of the Goolesbys' case at trial, the court entered a judgment as a matter of law for Koch Farms on all counterclaims except for breach of contract.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Goolesbys on their breach-of-contract counterclaim, awarding $275,000 in damages.
- The trial court granted Koch Farms' post-trial motion for a remittitur, reducing the damages award to $100,632.62.
- When the Goolesbys refused to accept the remittitur, the trial court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial on the breach-of-contract counterclaim.
- The Goolesbys (appellants) appealed the judgment as a matter of law on their tort claims and the order for a new trial to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 party who possesses, but does not own, a chattel have a valid claim for conversion against the true owner who repossesses it?
Opinions:
Majority - Nabers, C.J.
No. A party possessing a chattel does not have a valid claim for conversion against the chattel's true owner. The court reasoned that under Alabama Code § 6-5-261, an action for interference with a chattel can be maintained by a possessor 'except as against the true owner.' Because it was undisputed that Koch Farms was the true owner of the chickens, the Goolesbys, who had only a right of possession, could not legally state a claim for conversion. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Goolesbys' claim for intentional interference with business relations, holding as a matter of law that a party, such as Koch Farms, cannot be liable for interfering with its own contract or business relationship.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a bright-line rule limiting the tort of conversion in Alabama, clarifying that it is not a viable claim for a possessor of property against the actual titleholder. By strictly applying the statutory exception in § 6-5-261, the court prevents contract disputes over the right to possession from escalating into more serious tort claims for conversion. The case solidifies the principle that remedies for wrongful repossession by a property's owner must be sought through breach of contract or other avenues, not conversion. The holding also reaffirms the fundamental doctrine that intentional interference claims are exclusively for harm caused by third parties, not by parties to the relationship itself.
