Common-law & statutory conversion; Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc (Aroma Wines I & II); Whether the tort claims were barred because any action necessarily lie in contract; Hart v Ludwig; Treble damages, costs, & attorney fees under MCL 600.2919a; Whether such damages are discretionary or mandatory; Comparing the damages provision in the Right to Farm Act (MCL 286.473b); Breach of a bailment contract

The court held that plaintiff’s (HMC) tort claims were not barred under Hart, and that the trial court did not err in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant (RMI) was liable for conversion. Because it was “compelled to follow Aroma Wines I,” the court also held “that the award of damages under MCL 600.2919a falls under the” trial court’s discretion. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding HMC treble damages, costs, and attorney fees under the statute. Finally, the trial court did not err in ruling after the bench trial that RMI breached its bailment contract with HMC. This case involved the bailment of large machinery. As to the conversion claims, the court first found that the record belied RMI’s assertion that it was entitled to summary disposition due to the lack of a demand on HMC’s part. In addition, “RMI’s explicit refusal to allow others to come on the property to quote the removal of the equipment, coupled with RMI’s failure to provide a quote of its own to remove the equipment, is sufficient to allow a fact-finder to conclude that RMI’s actions constituted a ‘refusal’ to relinquish the property.” As to RMI’s reliance on Hart in contending HMC’s tort claims were barred on the basis any action necessarily lie in contract, the court found that RMI misrepresented Hart’s holding. “Hart does not hold that actions between contracting parties always lie in contract.” The court added that, in any event, it was “clear that RMI had a separate and distinct legal duty under the common law to not exercise dominion and control over the Ajax equipment that was inconsistent with HMC’s right to possession.” The court next concluded that the trial court did not err in relying on Aroma Wines II and finding that RMI’s owner put the “equipment to his own use.” As to the issue of treble damages under MCL 600.2919a, the court agreed with HMC “that a proper interpretation of MCL 600.2919a(1) shows that it does not imbue a trial court with discretion to deny treble damages, costs, and attorney fees to a party who prevails on a statutory-conversion claim.” But while it determined “that Aroma Wines I was incorrectly decided on this issue,” it was bound to follow that decision. As to the breach of bailment contract, assuming a demand was necessary in this context, “HMC sufficiently demanded the return of the property.” Affirmed.