Opinion ID: 3178500
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The Breach of Contract Claim The plaintiff alleges that, despite the fact that the December 17, 2009 contract which formed the basis of her complaint was not entered as an exhibit at trial, the trial justice erred in determining there was no contract because both parties testified regarding the contract. She adds that testimony reflected the fact that Mr. Main made at least some payments in accordance with the terms of the purported December 17, 2009 contract. We begin by noting that plaintiff bore the burden of proving her breach of contract claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Campbell v. Walsh-Kaiser Co., 72 R.I. 358, 359-60, 51 A.2d 530, 531 (1947); see General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. American National Fireproofing, Inc., 716 A.2d 751, 757 (R.I. 1998); see also Gorman v. St. Raphael Academy, 853 A.2d 28, 37 (R.I. 2004). While we acknowledge that Mr. Main did testify that he made a lumpsum payment in December of 2009 and that he made larger payments after December 17, 2009, we nonetheless conclude, based on our review of the record, that the trial justice had competent evidence to support her finding that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing the existence of a contract. See Wellington Condominium Association, 68 A.3d at 599. We have stated that a contract requires “competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.” Lamoureux v. Burrillville Racing Association, 91 R.I. 94, 98, 161 A.2d 213, 215 (1960) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff inexplicably failed to produce at trial a copy of the purported December 17, 2009 contract. Additionally, as plaintiff recognizes in her filing before this Court, defendant testified - 11 - at trial that he refused to sign the December 17, 2009 document. He also stated that he gave Ms. Turdo a lump-sum payment in December of 2009 because she had threatened to repossess the truck—not because such a payment was required under the terms of the purported new December 17, 2009 contract. Without a copy of the alleged contract containing defendant’s signature and in light of his testimony that he did not agree to its terms, we perceive no evidence in the record of a mutuality of agreement. Moreover, we must bear in mind that the trial justice found plaintiff’s testimony with respect to debts owed to her by Mr. Main and monies she had received from him to “lack[] all credibility.” As such, it is our opinion that the trial justice did not clearly err in making a factual determination that defendant did not execute a written agreement with plaintiff on December 17, 2009.3
The Counterclaim for Conversion Ms. Turdo contends that the trial justice’s finding in defendant’s favor on his conversion counterclaim was in error because Mr. Main did not prove a possessory interest in the truck. She references the fact that the registration, title, and insurance on the truck remained in her name. An action for conversion requires a plaintiff to establish that he or she “was in possession of the personalty, or entitled to possession of the personalty, at the time of conversion.” Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87, 97 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918, 928 (R.I. 1996)). The “gravamen of an action for conversion lies in 3 The plaintiff makes an additional argument that she should have been awarded damages under the June 5, 2009 contract. But plaintiff’s complaint is based solely on the December 17, 2009 document. Consequently, despite plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, there was no basis upon which the trial justice could award her damages on the June 5, 2009 contract. Moreover, it is also worth noting that the trial justice specifically found that Mr. Main was in compliance with the June 5, 2009 contract at the time the truck was repossessed. - 12 - the    taking [of the] personalty [of another party] without consent and exercising dominion over it inconsistent with the [other party’s] right to possession.” Fuscellaro v. Industrial National Co., 117 R.I. 558, 560, 368 A.2d 1227, 1230 (1977). The intentional exercise of dominion or control over another’s chattel must “so seriously interfere[] with the right of another to control it that [the individual exercising dominion or control over the chattel] may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.” Narragansett Electric Co., 898 A.2d at 97 (quoting Montecalvo, 682 A.2d at 928). The June 5, 2009 contract, by its terms, granted Mr. Main the “right to use” the truck, regardless of the fact that the title, insurance, and registration were still in Ms. Turdo’s name; the contract allowed him to possess and use the truck as long as he continued to make the required payments. Mr. Main testified that he was current on his payments for the truck at the time it was repossessed. Moreover, Victoria Bentley’s testimony confirmed that Mr. Main expressed his belief that he was current in his payments to Ms. Turdo when she attempted to repossess the truck in February of 2010. In accordance with the just-referenced testimony, the trial justice found as a fact that defendant was current on his debt in February of 2010. She also found that Mr. Main did have a possessory interest at the time the truck was repossessed, which possessory interest existed pursuant to the June 5, 2009 contract. Moreover, she came to the conclusion, based upon her findings as to credibility, that Mr. Main returned the truck to plaintiff due to the threat of having it reported as stolen and that, therefore, his return of the truck was not a voluntary act. The trial justice proceeded to hold that plaintiff was liable for conversion. Upon our review of the record and the trial justice’s decision, we are also of the opinion that plaintiff was liable for conversion when she took the truck in which defendant had a possessory interest without his consent and, by taking dominion over the truck, deprived him entirely of the use of - 13 - the truck. See Narragansett Electric Co., 898 A.2d at 97; Fuscellaro, 117 R.I. at 560, 368 A.2d at 1230. Our review has unearthed no error in the factual findings of the trial justice; and, in our judgment, those facts can lead to only one conclusion—that plaintiff converted the truck to her own use without legal entitlement. Ms. Turdo further contends that, even if defendant prevails on his conversion counterclaim, defendant should not receive any damages due to the fact that the value of the truck had already been deducted from what Mr. Main owed her. However, the purpose of the trial in this case was to make a determination as to the debts of the parties based on any contracts or agreements executed by the parties. The trial justice found plaintiff’s testimony regarding defendant’s debt not to be credible. The plaintiff has not presented us with any basis on which to question the trial justice’s credibility findings in this regard. See Wellington Condominium Association, 68 A.3d at 599. The plaintiff also posits that defendant is not entitled to damages because he did not meet his burden of producing any evidence as to the value of the truck at the time it was repossessed in February of 2010. We have stated that “the measure of damages for conversion is usually the value of the property at the time of its conversion, a matter susceptible of being proved by evidence of market value.” Jeffrey v. American Screw Co., 98 R.I. 286, 291, 201 A.2d 146, 150 (1964). The trial justice in the instant case based her award on the market value of the truck in September of 2010 when the truck was sold. Even though the trial justice based her damages award on the market value of the truck at a point in time after the conversion had taken place, she relied on our established method of calculating damages for a conversion using the market value of the chattel and, based on the evidence in this particular case, we cannot say that there was reversible error in the trial justice’s damages determination. - 14 - We would also note that, on appeal, plaintiff’s argument seems to be little more than an attempt to re-litigate this case. Her filings before this Court address only her disagreement with the factual findings of the trial justice. However, it is not our role to make new factual findings. Our role is confined to determining whether the trial justice committed clear error in her factual findings or misconceived or overlooked material evidence. See Wellington Condominium Association, 68 A.3d at 599. We are entirely unable to say that the trial justice in the instant case committed any such error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial justice’s judgment in the instant case.
The Rule 60(b) Motion The plaintiff next avers that, at the hearing on her post-trial Rule 60(b)(3) & (6) motion, she demonstrated that Mr. Main “outright lied” at the trial and that she should have been granted “relief for manifest injustice.” Specifically, plaintiff contends that she demonstrated the following: (1) that Mr. Main stated at trial that he never agreed to the terms of the purported December 17, 2009 contract whereas a police report from the Hopkinton Police reflected the fact that defendant “went to the police with the December 17, 2009 agreement in hand and told the police he had typed up the agreement;” (2) that Mr. Main lied about the date on which he went to the police; (3) that Mr. Main returned the truck not because of threats by Ms. Turdo but, rather, due to the fact that the police advised him to return it; and (4) that Mr. Main had been convicted of committing four domestic offenses against Ms. Turdo, for which he received jail time and probation. Rule 60(b)(3) provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for    [f]raud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party   .” Rule - 15 - 60(b)(6) allows for relief from a final judgment for “[a]ny other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” It is our well-settled precedent that “[a] motion to vacate a judgment is left to the sound discretion of the trial justice and such a ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Berman v. Sitrin, 101 A.3d 1251, 1260 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Malinou v. Seattle Savings Bank, 970 A.2d 6, 10 (R.I. 2009)). Moreover, our “review is limited to an examination of the decision to determine the correctness of the order granting or denying the motion, not the correctness of the original judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The trial justice in the instant case found no misrepresentations or misconduct on the part of the defendant that would allow for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3). She further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because that rule typically applies only in extraordinary circumstances and none were present in this case. See Allen ex rel. Allen v. South County Hospital, 945 A.2d 289, 297 (R.I. 2008) (“Rule 60(b)(6) was not intended to constitute a catchall and    circumstances must be extraordinary to justify relief.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). It was the opinion of the trial justice that the plaintiff was simply looking for a “do-over.” After our thorough review of the record in this case, we likewise are of the opinion that, in her Rule 60(b) motion and on appeal, the plaintiff appears to be seeking a “do-over” in view of the fact that she received an unfavorable result at trial. The misconduct or “lie[s]” which Ms. Turdo claims she demonstrated at the hearing on her Rule 60(b) motion did not sway the trial justice, and we cannot perceive any error in the trial justice’s application of Rule 60(b) to the instant case. Therefore, we uphold the trial justice’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. - 16 - V