Court Determines Whether Vehicle Was Legally Sold At Auction For Non-Payment of Lien
In 2019, Georges Coly asserted a claim of replevin against Yorke & Sons Auto Inc. and Alive Auto Repair Inc. for the return of his 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe bearing VIN 1GNSCBKCXFR160546, as well as $1,200 in lost wages resulting from the allegedly unlawful detention of his vehicle. On May 9, 2023, the Court conducted a lengthy inquest on the record, during which it heard testimony from Coly and considered his documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the inquest, Coly orally amended his demand for damages to include $100,000 in lost wages, plus interest calculated at 20%, and a new 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe to be funded by Yorke and Alive.
Coly’s testimony was replete with substantial gaps and occasional inconsistencies. According to Coly, he was involved in an automobile accident on November 18, 2018, which damaged the front end of his vehicle and caused the airbag to deploy. The following day, on November 19, 2018, he brought his vehicle to Alive Auto Repair for repairs and was instructed to return the next day to receive an estimate. On November 20th, Coly returned to Alive and apparently was dissatisfied with the estimate; he claimed he told Alive not to repair his vehicle, but also that he could not take his vehicle that day and would return another day to retrieve it.
By Coly’s own account, he returned to retrieve his vehicle more than one month, but possibly a few months, later. Alive informed him it was charging $65 per day to store the vehicle and demanded payment as a condition of releasing the vehicle to him. Coly rebuffed the request for payment and left without his vehicle. On or about May 17, 2019, about six months after he first brought his vehicle to Alive, Coly paid Alive $300 toward the storage fees, but Alive refused to return the vehicle given a then-outstanding balance of several thousand dollars. Coly claimed he did not owe storage fees to Alive, because he had not entered into a written or oral contract for their payment.
Although the record was unclear on this score, it seemed that Yorke., a neighboring business of Alive, may have stepped into the shoes of Alive at some point and assumed possession of the vehicle. Coly produced a 2019 “notice of lien and sale” reflecting that Yorke claimed a $10,000 lien against the vehicle calculated as follows: $5,731 for repairs; $6,630 for storage charges from August 27, 2019, through December 6, 2019 (102 days at $65 per day); and a lien fee of $575, totaling $12,936. The notice indicated that an additional lien was being claimed for storage charges from December 7, 2019, through the date of sale. The notice clearly warned that Coly had until December 17, 2019, to redeem the vehicle, otherwise it would be offered for sale at public auction on January 3, 2020. The name and contact information of the auctioneer was clearly provided, and the notice reflected Coly’s name and correct address. When the Court questioned whether Coly had received the notice of lien and sale prior to the auction, he equivocated significantly before ultimately stating that he had not. The Court did not find that denial credible. Coly further stated that he never contacted the auctioneer, Yorke or Alive prior to the noticed sale of his vehicle.
Coly further testified that Yorke and Alive were wrongfully driving his car when it was supposed to be stored for repair. He presented a “pre-penalty notice of unpaid violation” from the City Department of Finance, related to a January 1, 2021 violation for missing plates, as well as a February 3, 2021 receipt for Coly’s payment of that violation.
Coly also claimed that on May 19, 2022 he observed his vehicle in front of Yorke’s lot, and that when he stopped to take photographs of his car, a group of men hurled expletives and spat at him. Coly called the police, who responded to the scene. According to Coly, an officer spoke with Regina Yorke who either claimed, or showed the officer paperwork establishing, she was the rightful owner of the vehicle. Coly indicated that the police officer could not determine the rightful owner and departed without a police report being filed.
With respect to the claim for lost wages, Coly provided weekly income summaries from Lyft for a few weeks in 2022, but did not provide comparable proof of his income during the time the vehicle was in his possession.
To prevail on a claim of replevin, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she owns specified property, or is lawfully entitled to possess it, and that the defendant has unlawfully withheld the property from the plaintiff. The Court found that Coly failed to meet his burden under that standard. While the record showed that Coly owned the vehicle at the time he brought it to Alive, and that he requested a return of his vehicle, Alive did not unlawfully detain the vehicle. Alive stored the vehicle for more than one month at Coly’s explicit request and was entitled to charge the daily storage fee of $65, which was reasonable. Thus, Alive had a garage keeper’s lien upon the vehicle in the sum of the unpaid storage fees, and lawfully detained the vehicle until payment would be made.
Coly also did not meet his burden as against Yorke. As indicated, the Court did not find credible his denial of timely receipt of the notice of lien and sale, and Coly did not challenge the validity of the lien following receipt of the notice of lien and sale and prior to the sale. Coly stated his belief that the vehicle was in fact sold at auction, as circumstantial evidence also demonstrated. Upon that record, the Court concluded that ownership of the vehicle lawfully transferred from Coly to the new owner, and Coly had no rightful claim for the return of the vehicle.
Finally, Coly’s claim for lost wages resulting from the unlawful detention of the vehicle failed as a matter of law with the replevin claim, as well as on the facts due to lack of proof.
Coly’s claims were dismissed.