Walls v. Rees
1990 Del. LEXIS 34, 569 A.2d 1161 (1990)
Rule of Law:
Governmental entities are not immune under the Delaware Tort Claims Act from a claim for replevin seeking the return of property unlawfully withheld, and if the property is no longer available, the action for replevin can result in a money judgment for its fair market value at the time of the unlawful conversion.
Facts:
- On March 28, 1984, Joseph M. Walls was arrested and incarcerated in connection with a criminal investigation.
- The New Castle County Police seized Walls's vehicle, believing it had been used in a felony and was involved in the investigation.
- On April 24, 1984, Scott Rees, a New Castle County Police Department employee, sent a certified letter to Walls advising him that his vehicle could be released but would be towed to a commercial storage facility after 30 days, incurring daily storage fees.
- Walls's wife, Donna M. Walls, a joint owner, contacted New Castle County Police but was unsuccessful in securing the vehicle's release.
- On November 2, 1984, Walls was acquitted of the criminal charges.
- After his acquittal, Walls and/or his representative attempted to regain possession of the vehicle but was advised by an unidentified county employee that it would be returned only upon proof of ownership, proof of insurance, and payment of towing and storage fees.
- Walls proved ownership and insurance but refused to pay the towing and storage fees.
- On August 15, 1986, New Castle County transferred possession of the vehicle to B & F Towing and Salvage Company, Inc., a commercial storage facility, without notifying Walls.
- In October 1987, B & F Towing contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles for authorization to dispose of the vehicle as abandoned, and on October 20, 1987, it was sold for $25.00 to Breitenbach Auto Recyclers and crushed for scrap metal, without notice to Walls.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 24, 1986, Joseph M. Walls filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking an order compelling New Castle County and Scott Rees to return his vehicle, or for compensatory and punitive damages.
- New Castle County and Rees denied Walls's entitlement to relief and raised common law sovereign immunity and the Delaware Tort Claims Act as affirmative defenses.
- On May 28, 1987, New Castle County and Rees moved for summary judgment.
- On July 6, 1987, the Superior Court granted summary judgment to New Castle County and Rees on the tort claims for damages, finding immunity under 10 Del.C. § 4011(a).
- The Superior Court delayed its ruling on the request for the return of the vehicle, pending memoranda on the issues of requiring fees and additional notice upon transfer.
- On February 18, 1988, the Superior Court denied New Castle County's and Rees's motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues and ordered them to return the vehicle to Walls.
- After this order, New Castle County and Rees discovered the vehicle had been destroyed.
- On April 18, 1988 (amended May 23, 1988), the Superior Court ordered the parties to negotiate a settlement on the vehicle's market value, allowing New Castle County and Rees to request a hearing on value (which would admit entitlement to compensation) or submit arguments against compensation.
- New Castle County and Rees subsequently moved for summary judgment again, arguing immunity from a tort claim for damages under 10 Del.C. § 4011.
- On October 28, 1988, the Superior Court granted summary judgment, holding New Castle County and Rees immune from liability for money damages.
- A motion for reargument was denied on December 1, 1988.
- Walls then filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 the Delaware Tort Claims Act provide governmental immunity to a county and its employees for liability in an action for replevin, which subsequently converts to a claim for money damages representing the value of the property, when the property (a seized vehicle) was unlawfully withheld and then destroyed?
Opinions:
Majority - Christie, Chief Justice
No, the Delaware Tort Claims Act does not provide governmental immunity to New Castle County and its employees for liability in an action for replevin seeking the return of an unlawfully withheld and subsequently destroyed vehicle, even when the claim converts to one for money damages representing the vehicle's value. The court first established that New Castle County unlawfully withheld Walls's vehicle because, upon his acquittal on November 2, 1984, the county's right to retain the vehicle terminated under 11 Del.C. § 2311(a)(2). The demand for towing and storage fees was inconsistent with county departmental procedures and prior Superior Court decisions, as no statute authorized such a lien. While the Tort Claims Act (10 Del.C. § 4011(a)) generally grants immunity for traditional tort claims seeking damages resulting from negligence or discretionary functions, Walls's claim was for replevin, an action for the recovery of specific personal property unlawfully withheld (Harlan & Hollingsworth Corp. v. McBride). The court ruled that the Act does not bar actions for replevin. When the vehicle was discovered to be destroyed, the claim for replevin was not converted into a new tort claim for negligence subject to immunity, but rather transitioned, within the existing replevin action, to a demand for a sum of money equivalent to the property's value because the property could not be surrendered. The value should be established as of the date of the unlawful conversion (Walls's acquittal). Additionally, the court found merit in Walls's argument that 11 Del.C. § 2311, which mandates the return of seized property upon acquittal, creates a specific statutory duty that either falls outside the scope of the Tort Claims Act's immunity or constitutes an express exception to it. The court rejected the argument that seizing and storing a vehicle constitutes "ownership, maintenance or use" under the motor vehicle exception of 10 Del.C. § 4012(1) due to strict construction of immunity exceptions. Therefore, New Castle County and its employees were not immune from liability for the loss of Walls's vehicle.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of governmental immunity under the Delaware Tort Claims Act, particularly concerning claims for the return of property. It establishes that while the Act broadly protects governmental entities from tort claims for damages, it does not bar actions seeking the return of unlawfully withheld property (replevin). Crucially, the case holds that if the property is destroyed while unlawfully held, the replevin action can morph into a claim for monetary compensation without losing its non-tortious character and thus circumventing tort immunity. This precedent highlights a critical distinction between claims for property recovery and traditional negligence-based tort claims, potentially expanding avenues for relief against governmental entities for property conversion.
