Opinion ID: 2605742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the wrongful deprivation of property claim

Text: Plaintiffs also claim that the jury was erroneously instructed with respect to the legal prerequisites for detaining property held by another. AS 34.35.175(a) grants a possessory improvement lien on personal property under certain circumstances. It provides: Improvement lien on personal property. (a) A person who makes, alters, repairs or labors upon an article of personal property at the request of the owner or lawful possessor has a lien on the property for his just and reasonable charges for the labor performed and material furnished. The person may keep possession of the article until the charges are paid. AS 34.35.220(2) grants a possessory storage lien: Persons entitled to carrier, warehouse, and livestock liens. The following persons shall have liens upon personal property for their just and reasonable charges for the labor, care, and attention bestowed and the food furnished, and may retain possession of the property until the charges are paid: ..... (2) a person who safely keeps or stores grain, wares, merchandise, and personal property at the request of the owner or lawful possessor of the property; ... The court instructed the jury that Whitney-Fidalgo would be justified in refusing to deliver the scow if West then owed the defendant money for storage, maintenance, repairs, supplies, and/or services for her scow. As to the claims of Wright and Wilska, the court instructed the jury that Whitney-Fidalgo would be justified in refusing to deliver the scow to West if she owed the company money for storage, maintenance, supplies and/or services for her scow or that Whitney-Fidalgo honestly believed that West owed it money for such items. Plaintiffs had requested instructions that Whitney-Fidalgo's right to retain possession of the scow could be established only upon proof, among other things, that defendant's charge was reasonable for the labor performed or the materials furnished. The question presented is therefore whether Whitney-Fidalgo lost its right to retain the scow if its claim was unreasonable. The answer supplied by the cases is that mere excessiveness of an amount claimed does not void the lien if, 1) the lienor believes the amount is correct, and 2) the owner has not been prejudiced by the excessive demand. Mercer Steel Co. v. Park Construction Company, 242 Or. 596, 411 P.2d 262, 264 (1966); Drake Lumber Co. v. Paget Mortgage Co., 203 Or. 66, 274 P.2d 804, 811 (1954); Power Transmission Equipment Corp. v. Beloit Corp., 55 Wis.2d 540, 201 N.W.2d 13, 16 (1972). One type of prejudice which will operate to discharge an excessive claim of lien made in good faith occurs where the owner of the property detained is prevented by the excessiveness of the amount claimed from obtaining the property by paying the actual amount due, and thereby suffers damage. Folsom v. Barrett, 180 Mass. 439, 62 N.E. 723 (1902); Stephenson v. Lichenstein, 72 N.J.L. 113, 59 A. 1033 (1905); Simons v. Brashears Transfer and Storage, 344 P.2d 1107, 1112 (Okl. 1959). Since neither plaintiffs' proposed instructions nor their objections referred to these principles, it is doubtful whether a new trial would be warranted by reason of the court's failure to instruct on them. [12] However, because this case must be retried, and because the nature of defendant's conduct in detaining the scow will be a central issue at the trial, we think that justice can best be done by resubmitting to the jury upon proper instructions the question of defendant's right to detain the scow.