MacKey v. Goslee
2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 170, 2008 WL 253546, 244 S.W.3d 261 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The measure of damages for the conversion of personal property is its fair market value at the time and place of the conversion, not its replacement cost. When converted property is later recovered, the measure of damages is the difference between the property's value at the time of conversion and its value upon return, plus the reasonable value for the loss of use during the period of detention.
Facts:
- Alvin Mackey owed Steven G. Goslee an unpaid bill.
- In January 2003, Mackey and Goslee had a conversation about the debt, which ended with Goslee stating he would do whatever necessary to protect his interest.
- A few hours later, Mackey discovered that his custom-built, 20-year-old, twenty-seven-foot heavy-duty trailer and the personal property on it were missing from his property.
- In July 2004, law enforcement discovered the trailer at a business owned by Goslee.
- The trailer had been damaged, with its tongue severed by a cutting torch, rendering it unusable.
- The personal items that had been on the trailer were never recovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin Mackey (Respondent) filed a lawsuit against Steven G. Goslee (Appellant) for conversion in the Circuit Court of Wright County, Missouri (trial court).
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Mackey.
- The trial court awarded Mackey $14,000 in actual damages and $2,500 in punitive damages.
- Goslee, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both the conversion finding and the damage awards. Mackey is the appellee in this appeal.
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 evidence of the replacement cost of a converted item, determined nearly three years after the conversion, satisfy the legal standard for proving actual damages, which requires establishing the item's fair market value at the time and place of the conversion?
Opinions:
Majority - Rahmeyer, J.
No. The proper measure of damages for conversion is the fair market value at the time and place of the conversion, and evidence of replacement cost is legally insufficient. The court affirmed the finding that Goslee was liable for conversion based on circumstantial evidence: the prior dispute, Goslee's threatening statement, and the trailer's discovery on Goslee's property. However, the court found the trial court erred in its damage calculation. Mackey only presented evidence of the replacement value of a different trailer in Texas nearly three years after the conversion, and the replacement cost of the other items. This evidence failed to establish the fair market value of the 20-year-old trailer and used equipment at the time they were taken. Furthermore, because the trailer was recovered, the correct damage calculation required evidence of its value at the time of conversion, its value upon return, and the loss of use, none of which were provided. Therefore, the award of actual and punitive damages was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on damages only.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical clarification on the evidentiary requirements for proving damages in conversion actions. It strictly distinguishes between the concepts of 'fair market value' at the time of taking and 'replacement cost,' holding that the latter is not a valid substitute for the former. The ruling emphasizes the plaintiff's burden to present specific, timely evidence of an item's condition and market value at the moment of conversion. This precedent reinforces that courts will not infer fair market value from replacement cost alone, compelling future litigants to provide more precise valuation evidence, such as appraisals or testimony about comparable sales at the relevant time.
Unlock the full brief for MacKey v. Goslee