Statutory conversion (MCL 600.2919a); The Garage Keeper’s Lien Act; Joy Oil Co v Fruehauf Trailer Co; Abandoned arguments

Holding that defendant abandoned its challenge to the trial court’s ruling that it violated the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act, the court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff in this conversion case. The case related to a vehicle leased by a nonparty (F) in a lease agreement with plaintiff. F defaulted on his payments and plaintiff sought to repossess the vehicle. F told plaintiff that it was at defendant’s garage. Plaintiff contacted defendant, which eventually advised plaintiff “that it intended to sell the vehicle under the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act to satisfy a $27,384.28 lien against the vehicle.” Plaintiff filed this suit, but the vehicle was eventually sold, and the case was reduced to a conversion action. The trial court later “entered a final judgment trebling plaintiff’s damages under MCL 600.2919a and awarding costs and attorney fees.” On appeal, defendant’s arguments all rested “on the unsupported assertion that it complied with the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act.” The court noted that it offered “no argument whatsoever to rebut the trial court’s reliance on” Joy Oil. In that case, “the garage-keeper performed work on the vehicle but ‘fail[ed] to prove that the repairs were made at the request of or with the consent of’ the owner, meaning it ‘ha[d] not sustained the burden of establishing a statutory garage-keeper’s lien.’” Defendant did not produce any “evidence that plaintiff consented to the work for which it asserted the lien and” failed to even acknowledge Joy Oil in “its brief, let alone distinguish it.”