MacKey v. Goslee
2008 WL 253546, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 170, 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 conversion of personal property is the property's fair market value at the time and place of the conversion, which cannot be established solely by evidence of its replacement cost, particularly when that cost is determined long after the conversion.
Facts:
- Alvin Mackey owed an unpaid bill to Steven G. Goslee.
- In January 2003, Goslee confronted Mackey about the debt, ending the conversation by stating, 'I will do whatever I have to do to protect my interest.'
- A few hours after the confrontation, Mackey returned home to find that his custom-built, 20-year-old, twenty-seven-foot heavy-duty trailer and the personal property on it were missing.
- Mackey reported the trailer and property stolen to the police the same day.
- In July 2004, law enforcement discovered the trailer at a business owned by Goslee.
- The trailer's tongue had been severed with a cutting torch, rendering it unusable, and the other personal property was never recovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin Mackey (Respondent) sued Steven G. Goslee (Appellant) for conversion in the Circuit Court of Wright County, Missouri (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Mackey.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding Mackey $14,000 in actual damages and $2,500 in punitive damages.
- Goslee appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is testimony regarding only the replacement value of a converted item, determined nearly three years after the conversion, sufficient evidence to establish the item's fair market value at the time of conversion for the purpose of awarding damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer
No. Evidence of replacement value alone is insufficient to establish the fair market value of converted property at the time of conversion. The court affirmed the finding of conversion liability, reasoning that strong circumstantial evidence—including the prior threat, the timing of the disappearance, and the trailer's discovery at Goslee's business—supported the inference that Goslee took the property. However, the court reversed the damages award. The proper measure of damages for conversion is the fair market value at the time and place of the conversion. Mackey only presented evidence of the replacement cost of a different trailer in Texas, priced nearly three years after the conversion, without offering any comparison of age, condition, or other factors to establish the fair market value of his 20-year-old trailer when it was taken. Similarly, for the other personal property, Mackey only provided replacement costs without evidence of the items' actual condition and value at the time of conversion. Because this evidence was insufficient, the damages award could not stand.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between 'fair market value' and 'replacement value' in tort law, particularly in conversion claims. It serves as a clear precedent that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving damages with specificity, using evidence that directly relates to the property's condition and market value at the precise time of the tortious act. The decision guides future litigants on the type of evidence required, emphasizing that testimony about new or different items, especially when priced long after the event, is legally insufficient. This holding requires parties to be diligent in documenting and presenting evidence of an item's age, condition, and comparable sales at the time of loss to successfully recover damages.
Unlock the full brief for MacKey v. Goslee