West Case Update

Towing Company Holding of Vehicle without Permission Was Conversion

Description
Appeals court affirmed that for a towing company to deprive the rightful owner of a vehicle of the use of the vehicle without good cause was conversion, so damages were due.

Topic Real and Personal Property

Key Words
Vehicle, Security Interest, Lien, Towing, Wrongful Detention, Conversion

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts
Rodriguez bought a van from Bell on time. Rodriguez granted a security interest in the van to Bell, who perfected the interest by delivering the title to the Illinois Secretary of State. A year later, a policeman found the van parked on a public street with no license. He stuck an abandoned vehicle sticker on it. A week later it was towed away by Roger’s Towing. Bell, holding the title, was notified. Bell told Roger’s he wanted to get the vehicle. Roger’s said he would have to pay $1,000. Bell sent a letter offering to pay $175 for towing and storage. Roger’s ignored the letter. Bell sued. Roger’s did not appear in court, so Bell received a default judgment. Roger’s filed to vacate the default order and, another month later, there was a trial. The court held that Bell was entitled to possession when the vehicle was towed. Roger’s was negligent for failing to respond to Bell’s inquiry and letter. The court ordered the van returned and added $10,000 in damages. Roger’s appealed.

Decision
Affirmed. As the trial court determined, the vehicle was not really abandoned. It had been left parked for a long time and someone took the license. In any case, Roger’s had a duty to respond to the inquiry by Bell, as Roger’s must return vehicles to their owners once the towing fees are paid. The claim that the fee was $1,000 was misrepresentation. To ignore the letter offering $175 and then the notice of suit meant there was wrongful detention of the van. The owner was deprived of the use of his property and so is due damages. Bell had a valid lien on the van; for Roger’s to deny Bell his right to the vehicle was conversion. As such, the damages were not excessive.

Citation
Bell Leasing Brokerage v. Roger Auto Service, ---N.E.2d--- (2007 WL 958925, Ct. App., Ill., 2007)

Back to Real and Personal Property Listings

Towing Company Holding of Vehicle without Permission Was Conversion
Description	Appeals court affirmed that for a towing company to deprive the rightful owner of a vehicle of the use of the vehicle without good cause was conversion, so damages were due.
Topic	Real and Personal Property
Key Words	Vehicle, Security Interest, Lien, Towing, Wrongful Detention, Conversion
C A S E S U M M A R Y
Facts	Rodriguez bought a van from Bell on time. Rodriguez granted a security interest in the van to Bell, who perfected the interest by delivering the title to the Illinois Secretary of State. A year later, a policeman found the van parked on a public street with no license. He stuck an abandoned vehicle sticker on it. A week later it was towed away by Roger’s Towing. Bell, holding the title, was notified. Bell told Roger’s he wanted to get the vehicle. Roger’s said he would have to pay $1,000. Bell sent a letter offering to pay $175 for towing and storage. Roger’s ignored the letter. Bell sued. Roger’s did not appear in court, so Bell received a default judgment. Roger’s filed to vacate the default order and, another month later, there was a trial. The court held that Bell was entitled to possession when the vehicle was towed. Roger’s was negligent for failing to respond to Bell’s inquiry and letter. The court ordered the van returned and added $10,000 in damages. Roger’s appealed.
Decision	Affirmed. As the trial court determined, the vehicle was not really abandoned. It had been left parked for a long time and someone took the license. In any case, Roger’s had a duty to respond to the inquiry by Bell, as Roger’s must return vehicles to their owners once the towing fees are paid. The claim that the fee was $1,000 was misrepresentation. To ignore the letter offering $175 and then the notice of suit meant there was wrongful detention of the van. The owner was deprived of the use of his property and so is due damages. Bell had a valid lien on the van; for Roger’s to deny Bell his right to the vehicle was conversion. As such, the damages were not excessive.
Citation	Bell Leasing Brokerage v. Roger Auto Service, ---N.E.2d--- (2007 WL 958925, Ct. App., Ill., 2007)