### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Ja nuary 20, 200 5 S es sio n
JAM ES R OBER T (BO ) HOB BS

v. NORA ESTE LLE HOB BS, TE RESA WI NDLE, AND 

### DON HOL LAND

An Appeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Dyer County No. 03C125 J. Steve n Staf ford, Ch ancellor

No. W2004-01553-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jun e 29, 2005

This case involves the conve rsion o f personal property . For sever al y ear s, the plaintiff son stored
va ri ou s ty pe s of e qu ipm e nt in a po le ba rn loc a te d on his mothe r’ s pr op e rt y

. Th e mothe r de c ide d to sell her pr operty

and, in pre paration for the sale, she hired the defe ndant scra p deale r to clea

r out the pole barn and sell its contents. The sc rap de aler clea red out the pole barn an d s o l d t h e son’s equipment for a

total of $657. After the son learned of this, he sued his mother and the sc rap de aler , c la imi ng that th e y

c on ve rt e d h is p ro pe rt y

a nda sse rt ing that th e pr op e rt y wa s w orth $ 22 ,0 00 if purcha sed new . After

a trial, the tria l court held that the mother and the scra p deale r had c onverte d the son’s equipment, but aw arde d him $657 in damag es, the salva g e valu e o f t h e p roperty . The plaintiff now appe als. We aff irm, finding that the son failed to submit proof of the ac tual value of the prope rty

at the time of the c onversion.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.

Sa m J. Wa tr idg e , H umb old t, T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Jame s Ro be rt (B o) Ho bb s.
Marianna Wil liams, Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellees, N ora E. H obbs and Don Holland.

OP IN ION

This caseinvolves some tro u b l ed fa m i l y re l at i o n s h i p s

. P l ai n t i ff

/ Ap p el lant J ames Rober

t (Bo) Hobbs (“Son”) was in the business of buying and selling use d prope rty and equipment f

rom businesses that had c losed. He boug ht items such as cotton g ins, oil m ills, and the like. Over the y e ars , Son stor e d some of the ite ms he ha d pur c ha se d in a “po le ba rn ” loc a te d o n landow ne d b y his mother, De fenda nt/Appellee Nor a E. Hobbs ( “Mother” ). The pole barn, built by Son and his father , is a n o pe n b arn , 5 4 f

e e t w ide a nd70 fe e t lo ng , w ith a tin ro of he ld u p b y

po le s b ut w ith no sid e s.A p p a re n tly the o w n e rs h ip o f t h e p ro p e rty h a d b e e n d isp u te d w ithin the fam ily, a n d the trial ju d g e ha d re c e n tly 1
rul ed t hat i t was owne d by M o t her.
-2- Mother dec ided to sel l h er l an d . I n anticipation of the sa le, in Aug ust 2002, Mother hired Def endant/Appe llee Donald Holland (“H olland”) to c lean out the pole barn and haul away all of the ite ms i n th e ba

rn , in c lud ing ite ms o wn e d b y Son , a ndto se ll the m for sc ra p. Som e of

the ite ms i n the po le ba

rn that we re ow ne d by Son ha d be e n the re fo r a s lon g a s se ve n y e ars

. Pur su ant to Mother’s instructions, Holland sold Son’s persona l property , and fr om the sale of the property he collecte d a total of $657.05.

Son later l ea rn ed o f t he sale of his property and wa s not happy . On Marc h 17, 2003, Son filed a pe tition for c onversion ag ainst Holland, Mother, and his sister, Tere sa Windl e (“ Sist er” ). The complaint alleg ed that Holland, wit h the permission of Mother and Sister, took Son’s property that
wa s w orth o ve r $ 20 ,0 00 . So n d e ma nd e d $ 50 ,0 00 in d a ma g e s f or the de fe nd a nts ’ c on du c t. On April 19, 2004, the trial c ourt conduc ted a be nch trial in the matter. The trial court he ard t e s t i m o n y f

r o ma l l o f t h e p ar t i e s , a s w e l l a s o t h e r m e m b e r s o f

t h e e x t e n d e d f

a m i l y.
At the ou tse t, H oll a nd , th e sc ra p d e a le r, te sti fi e d. Ho lla nd sai d th at Mothe r a sk e d h im t o c le ar o ut h e r pol e barn and sell its c on te nts , a ndtol d h im that in re turn s he wo uldg ive him fi ft y pe rc e nt o f w hat he c oll e c te d. Ov e r a pe ri odof tw o o r thr e e we e ks , Ho lla nd sa id, he haule d th e ite ms away on his trailer a nd sold them to Hutcherson Scra p Iron. Holland said that he took the che cks he
rec eived to Sister at the g roce ry store wher e she worke d to have them c ashed. Sister ke pt Mother’s half of the proce eds to g ive it to her, and H olland kept his half. T h o u gh Ho l land ca nnot rea d or
write , h e ide nti fi e d h is s ig natur e on the $6 57 .0 5 in re c e ipt s h e ob ta ine d fr om the sa le of the pr op e rt y in question. H olland maintained that no one e ver told him that the property he sold belong ed to Son, and he a ssumed it was owned by Mother. Holland de scribed the items he hauled from the pole ba rn as “sc rap iron,” and said that “[i] t w asn’t worth nothing but junk.” He sa id there w ere metal cr ates
c on ta ini ng be ari ng s, sp ro c ke ts, a ndthe lik e , a ll o f w hic h had rus te d a ndha d b e e n s ub je c t to
we a th e r in g a n d a n im a ls s u c h a s mi c e

. H o ll a n d w a s a w ar e th a t S o n c laim e d th a t h e h a d stored el ec tri c m o t o rs i n t h e b ar n , an d Ho l l an d d es cr i b ed t h e m o t o rs h e t o o k as “j u n k

. ” H e s ai d t h atd o gs and rats had bee n kicking dirt on the motors, and that they wer e “marre d up in the ground, and I g ot a winch on the back of

my trailer, and I

drug the thing up on the back of the trailer .” Other

piece s of iron on a w elding table outside the ba rn require d Holland to g et a chain saw and cut down tree s that had g rown a

round the table and iron piec es in order to take them aw ay

. Mother also testified. She described what was in the pol e barn as scr ap iron, a nd said that much of it had be en put thereby Son “off an d o n ever since the pole barn ha d been put ther e.” Mother said that she kne w that Holland “haule d junk,” and she asked him to clea n out the pole barn beca use she wa s prepa

ring to sell her pr operty

. Mother ac knowledg ed that she did not tell Holland 1 that the prope rty

belong ed to Son, but said that she indicated to H olland that Son ha d “put some stuff in there [the pole barn].”So n’ s t est i m o ny ref erred rep eat ed l y to hi s d i sagr eem ent w i t h the t ri al c o urt ’ s p revi o us rul i ng t hat t he p o l e b arn 2
and t he r eal proper t y on wh i ch i t was l ocat ed bel onged t o M ot her , promp t i ng t he fol l owi ng ex cha ng e:

Q : H ave y o u had us e o f t hat po l e b arn? SO N : O h, y es, s i r. Q : H as t h at u s e bee n u n i n t er r u pt ed? S O N : It w a s m ine up un til the d a y the C o u r t s a id th a t I c o u ld n ’t h a v e it , t h a t I c o u ld n ’t h a v e t h e de e d t o m y f a r m. (c o n tinu e d ...)
-3- Sist er te stified as well. Sist er said that she and her mother had a “bad” relationship wit h Son. Sist er sa id that Holland would bring her the chec ks from the sale of the items in the pole barn, a nd she would ca sh them at the g roce ry store whe re she worke d. After cashing these c hecks, Sister said, she g ave Mothe r her

part of the proce eds of the sa le. Sister testified that she lives nea r Mother “ rig ht in front of the pole barn,” and that she was familiar with its contents. Sist er sa id that Son had not been to the pole barn in seve n or eig ht y ear s. She said that the barn contained “ junk” and “ scra

p iron,” a nd that “[t] here was no org anization whatsoeve r.” Sister said that it “looked like some body had bac ked a tr ailer up in [the barn], just threw stuff in it

. ” She said, “ the shelves ha d rotted, and the stu ff ha d f e ll o ff fr om i t, andit w a s lay ing in p ile s. ” She c on fi rm e d tha t the re we re so me e le c tr ic motors both insi de and outside of the barn and that they

wer e “buried up in the g round.”
Mickey My ers (“My ers” ), who wa s Sist er’ s daug hter’s e x -husband, testified at trial. My ers sa id that he ha d als o stor e d some ite ms at Mo the r’ s pole ba rn . M y e rs de sc ri be d s ome of the ite ms in the po le ba

rn ; he sa id that the ba

rn c on ta ine d c ott on g in e qu ipm e nt, wo od e n c rate s w it h sha ft s, bearings, spr ockets, roller s, a t able, and other items. He c onfirmed that ther e we re e lectric motors stored in the b ar n , a n d h e a s s u me d th e y b e lo n g e d to So n

. M y e r s s a idth a t, a f te r M o th e r hired Ho l l an d t o h au l aw ay th e it em s i n t h e po l e ba rn , S i s t er ca l l ed h i m an d t o l d h i mt h at h e n ee d ed t o go to the ba rn a nd sh ow Ho lla nd wh a t be lon g e d to him

. He sa id that he kn e w that so me of the pr op e rt y in the b ar n b e lo n g e d to So n , b u t h e u n d e r s to o d th a t M o th e r a n d Si s te r

th o u g h t th a t S o n h ad abandone d the prope rty

. M y er s said that he ha d been storing his own items in the pole barn for seven y ear s, g oing to the ba rn once or twice a we ek, and he never saw Son while he w as there

.
J im Hobbs (“Gr andson”) , Son’s son and Mother’s g randson, testified on be half of his father. Gra ndson rec alled that the pole ba rn wa s built when he wa s y oung , and testified that he knew that his fathe r s tor e d it e ms i n it . G rand so n s a id that So n s tor e d “ hu nd red s o f i te ms, so me of it s ma ll,
so me of it w a s b ig .” He de sc ri be d c on ta ine rs wi th p ull e y s, bu sh ing s, be ari ng s, sh e lvi ng , h y dr auli c c y lin de rs , h os e s, c ott on g in e qu ipm e nt, we lding ta ble s, stampi ng pr e sse s, bo lts , s pe c ia l g aug e s, elec trical e quipm ent, and e lectric motors. Grandson testified that he was in the business of
re bu ild ing a ndre se lli ng ma c hin e ry , a ndsa id that on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns he we nt t o th e po le barn to g et a pa rt that was ne eded t o rebuild mac hinery on which he w as working . Gra ndson said that Mother and Sister kne w that the prope rty in the barn be longe d to Son.

Son testified on his own behalf

. Son de scribed his f amily as “totally

dy sfunctional,” say ing that he had no r elationship with them “since I ’ve be en che at ed .” Son said that his income was 2(

. . . con t i n u ed) 2 Q : A ll rig h t. T H E CO U R T : Y ou kn ow, I ’ m get t i ng a l i t t l e wear y of t hi s

. And y ou may not l i ke, M r. H o b b s, what t he C o urt ’ s d eci si o n was, but i t was t he C o urt ’ s d eci si o n. SO N : O h, y es, s i r. Q : I d o n ’t - - T H E C O U R T : N o w, I’ m de t ect i ng s o m e sar casm i n t hat , and I’ m get t i ng a l i t t le

con ce r n ed abou t i t , s o – S O N : N o , sir, I d id n ’t m e a n it tha t wa y. T H E C O U R T : W e ll, tha t’s t h e w a y I’m tak ing it . S o let’s m o v e o n , a n d le t’s g e t t o t he meat of

t hi s i s s ue.

-4- de ri ve d f ro m bu y ing pr e do min a ntl y oil se e d e xtra c tio n e qu ipm e nt a nd re bu ild ing it. He state d th a t, in 1987, he paid for

the po l e b ar n an d built it to store a stac k wag on. Son said that he had be en collecting property in the barn f rom 1995 throug h 1999, and that some thing s had bee n there for a s long a s seven y ear s. Son indicated that a larg e portion of t he property stored in the barn was fr om a mac hine shop he had purcha sed at an auction, but that a majority of t he parts wer e purchased a s ne w p art s. He sa id the pr op e rt y inc lud e d c rate s o f p ull e y s, lar ge b eari ngs, sp ro c ke ts, a ndso me hy dr a uli c pa

rt s. Th e re wa s a lso a sma ll hy dr a uli c pr e ss w ith a ta ble , s of t c y lin de rs , b ru sh c y lin de rs , four electric motors, blast whee ls, and several other items. Son asserted that the motors “w ere new motors,” and that they

had bee n put in the barn in 1999. Son made a list of the pr o p er t y t h at had been store d in the barn be fore M o t h er h ad Holland clean it out. When asked the va lue of that property , Son used the cost of purc hasing new e quipment to replac e the items t h at we re sold. He
arrive d at a

tot a l va lue of

$2 2, 03 9. 48 fo r the ite ms.
On cr os s -e x am i nation, Son was asked w hat he ha d paid for the property taken, a nd he responde d, “The re w ould be no way t o t ell y ou, beca use it was ac cumulated ove r the y ear s.” He admitted, howeve r, that he did not pay full price for the items. When asked the a ctual value of the items sold, S on responde d, “I have no idea.” He claimed t hat t he mot ors t hat wer e sold wer e new , a ndthat th e y

we re no t a ff

e c te d b y sit tin g on the g ro un d inthe po le ba rnfo r s e ve ra l y e ars

.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court dismi ssed the cla im ag ainst Sist er, and then took the re maining issues unde r ad v i s ement. On May 25, 2004, the trial court entere d a memora ndum op ini on a ndor de r, c on c lud ing that Mo the r andHo lla nd con verte d So n’ s p ro pe rt y by re mov ing it from the pole barn and disposing of it without his consent. Althoug h Son sought the re place ment value of the converted property as i f i t wer e new, which he alleg ed wa s over $20,000, the trial court determined that the proper measure of damag es was the value of the property at t h e t i m e of
conver sion. The trial court observe d, howeve r, t hat S on offe red no evidenc e of the property ’s ac tual value at the time of the conver sion, a nd that he in fa ct admitted that he ha d “no idea ” of the actua l value. In light of this, the trial c ourt conc luded that Son was entitled only to the amount of moneyN ei t her M ot her nor H ol l and di s put e t hat a c onver s i on t oo k pl ace

. T her efore, t he onl y i s s ue on appeal r el at es 3

to the a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s to w h ic h S o n is en tit le d

. -5- the def endants re ceive d as the prope rty ’s salvag e value , or $657.05. From that order , Son now appea ls, challeng ing the amount of dama g es aw arde d. 3

The de terminati o n o f t h e ap propriate amount of dama g es is a question of f act, whic h we revie w de novo , presuming the trial court’s finding to be corr ect unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise. Charles v. Latham , No. E2003-00852- COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 1898261, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. Ap p. Au g . 2 5, 20 04 ); Te nn. R. App . P. 13 (d ). Th e pr op e r m e a su re of da ma g e s, ho we ve r, is a question of law, whic h is reviewe d de novo , with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Charles , 2 0 0 4 WL 1898261, at *4.

The trial c ourt corr ectly

held that, g ener ally , the proper m easur e of damag es in a c onversion
case “is the value of the prope rty converted at the time and pla ce of co n v er sion, with int ere st.” La nc e Pr od s. , I nc . v . Co mm e rc e Uni on Ba nk , 76 4 S. W.2 d 2 07 , 2 13 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 8) ; see Caldwell v. Can ada Trace, Inc. , W2 00 3- 00 26 4- CO A- R3- CV , 2 00 4 WL 14 59 41 8, a t *7 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p

. J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g La nc e Pr od s. , 7 64 S.W. 2da t 21 3) ; see also Jack Strader Tire Co. v. Manu facturers Acce

ptance Corp. , 429 S.W .2d 428, 430 (Tenn. 1968)

. I n this case , much evidenc e was submitted by

both the plaintiff and the de fendants describing the condition of the c onverte d pr op e rt y wh e n it wa s so ld. Son , ho we ve r, su bmi tte d no pr oo f a s to the a c tua l va lue of the pr op e rt y wh e n it wa s so ld. Whe n a sk e d dir e c tly abo ut the a c tua l va lue of the c on ve rt e d pr op e rt y a t the tim e of sa le , So n c a nd idl y a dmi tte d that he ha d “ no ide a ,” a nd sa id that th e re wo uldbe no way to e sti ma te that value. In the abse nce of competent proof of actua l value at the time of the conve rsion, the trial
co u rt co n cl u d ed t h atS o n co u l d re co v ero n l y t h e m o n eyac t u al l y

p ai d t o t h e d ef

en d an t s as t h e s al v age value of the items converted.

F ro m ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d, we se e no e rr or in the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ionthat th e re is a complete lac k of evidenc e reg arding the actua l va lue of the property converted. Sufficient evide nce supports the trial court’s implicit findi ng that th e p ro p er t y wa s not in new condition when it was
c on ve rt e d, a nd that, the re fo re , th e c os t of re pla c ing the pr op e rt y

wi th n e w i te ms i s n ot the app ro pria te
measure of the a ctual value of the c onverte d property

. Son did not attempt to estimate the va lue of the pr op e rt y

wh e n it wa s so ld, no r c ou ld h e re c a ll w hat he had pai d fo r m os t of the ite ms b e c aus e they had bee n acc umulated over a period of sever al y ear s. Where ac tual value at the time of
conver sion is not shown by adequate proof, Son may rec over only

what the de fendants rece ived from the sale of

the conve rted prope rty

. See Porter v . Porter , N o

. 0 1 A01

- 9 4 1 2

- PB

- 0 0 5 7 7 , 1 9 9 5 WL 262094, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. May 5, 1 9 95) (r educing damag es to a nominal amount bec ause the plaint if f d id n ot p ro ve a c tua l va lue ); Maddox v. Herndon , 1989 WL 98065, at *3 (Aug . 23, 1989) (f ind ing that, be c a us e the re wa s no e vid e nc e re g ard ing the va lue of the c on ve rt e d pr op e rt y a t th e tim e of conver sion, the plaintiff did not prove damag es). There fore , in the instant case, the trial court wa s fully justified in using the salvag e value as t he measure of damag es, because it was the only evidenc e submitt ed at tria l reg arding the value o f t h e prope rty converted. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s a war d to Son of $657.05 in damag es for the prope rty

converted.-6-

The de cision of the trial c ourt is af fi rm ed

. C o sts on appeal a re to be taxed to Appellant J ames Robert (Bo) Hobbs, and his surety , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essary

.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE