Court Opinion

ID: 9955627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:17:51.335346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:08.792043
License: Public Domain

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT Qu CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit 25 OCT -S A&E? Docket No. 221-4-15 Wnev
F. SAMUEL RABER on appeal from

Defendant—Appellant oo Docket No. 509-9-14 Wnsc

Vv.
DANIEL ZAMPIERI

Plaintiff-A ppellee

SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL
Decision

Plaintiff Daniel Zampieri, an automobile mechanic, initiated this small claims case
seeking compensation from Defendant F. Samuel Raber for repairs to Mr. Raber’s Volvo for
which Mr. Raber had refused to pay. Mr. Raber opposed Mr. Zampieri’s claim and filed a
counterclaim seeking reimbursement for the expense of buying and repairing a new car so he
would have transportation while Mr. Zampieri kept possession of the Volvo. The small claims
court found in Mr. Zampieri’s favor and rejected Mr. Raber’s counterclaim. Mr. Raber then
appealed.

An appeal from a small claims judgment is heard and decided “based on the record made
in the small claims court.” 12 V.S.A. § 5538. “Where the evidence is conflicting the [small
claims] court has the sole responsibility for determining its weight and the credibility of the
witnesses.” Whipple v. Lambert, 145 Vt. 339-40, 1985 (per curiam). The court on appeal will
not interfere with a small claims judgment if the findings are sufficient to support the
conclusions of law. Bartley-Cruz v. McLeod, 144 Vt. 263, 264 (1984).

The court has reviewed the record and listened to the recording of the small claims
hearing. In summary, the thrust of the dispute that brought the parties to small claims court is as
follows. Mr. Raber was advised by one mechanic that his Volvo needed a repair for a “blown
head gasket.” That mechanic did not have time to do the repair so Mr. Raber took the vehicle to
Mr. Zampieri. Mr. Zampieri estimated that he could do it for $700. At the small claims hearing,
both parties agreed on that much. From there, the narratives part ways.

According to Mr. Zampieri, he removed the head gasket, had a machine shop work on the
heads, and put the car back together. He determined, however, that a blown head gasket was not
the problem preventing the car from running. He continued to work on the Volvo. Mr. Raber
was aware of and assented to the continuing work beyond the agreed upon head gasket work.
However, the parties did not discuss the expense of that additional work. Eventually, Mr.
Zampieri got the car running and presented Mr. Raber with a bill about double the original
estimate. Mr. Raber originally indicated that he would pay it but eventually refused, insisting
that he was liable only for the original $700 estimate despite all of the additional work.
and would unfairly result in a windfall for Mr. Raber if Mr. Zampieri were to become
responsible for the cost of the new car. The total bill was reasonable. Mr. Raber simply refused
to pay it.

Mr. Raber’s counterclaim was based in part on the length of Mr. Zampieri’s retention of
the vehicle. The small claims court noted that Mr. Zampieri was entitled to an artisan’s lien on
the car and failed to file suit within 30 days after Mr. Raber attempted to resolve the matter by
tender a check for $700 to Mr. Zampieri. The court found these facts irrelevant to Mr.
Zampieri’s claim and did not more completely analyze the consequences of Mr. Zampieri’s
retention of the vehicle.

An artisan’s lien allows the person who repairs an item of personal property to retain it
until the bill is paid. 9 V.S.A. § 1951. If the bill remains unpaid after three months, the lienor
may sell the property “except as provided in section 1954.” 9 V.S.A. § 1952. Section 1954
applies when the reasonableness of the bill is disputed. The customer, within the three-month
retention period, may “tender” a reasonable amount to resolve the dispute. Ifthe lienor rejects
the tender, the lienor must file suit to determine reasonableness within 30 days. If the lienor fails
to do so, the “lien shall terminate.” 9 V.S.A. § 1954.

During the first 90 days of Mr. Zampieri’s retention of the vehicle, Mr. Raber attempted
to deliver a check for $700 to him to resolve the dispute. Mr. Zampieri refused the check and did
not file suit within 30 days. If the delivery of the check was a sufficient tender for purposes of §
1954, Mr. Zampieri lost the right to retain possession of the vehicle on the 30th day afterwards
since he had not by then filed suit. The wrongful retention of the vehicle afterwards might have
entitled Mr. Raber to damages.

The small claims court did not analyze this aspect of Mr. Raber’s counterclaim explicitly.
However, its failure to do so was harmless in the circumstances of this case. See V.R.C.P. 61
(“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding
which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). Assuming for the sake of the
argument that Mr. Zampieri’s retention of the vehicle at a point became wrongful, despite Mr.
Raber’s refusal to pay, Mr. Raber’s response, buying a replacement vehicle, was not reasonable
and there was no evidence presented as to any other damages.

The small claims court’s evaluation of the equities of this case appears to have addressed
this matter. Mr. Raber’s refusal to pay the original bill was not reasonable. The attempted
accord and satisfaction would have given Mr. Zampieri the $700 originally estimated, nothing
for the somewhat higher actual cost of the working on the head gasket, and zero for all of the
additional work that Mr. Raber had assented to. If in spite of those circumstances Mr.
Zampieri’s retention of the vehicle became wrongful, it was for a brief time only. Mr. Raber
recovered possession of the vehicle by having a new key made and retaking it. There was no
evidence of reasonable damages incurred by Mr. Raber for the short interim during which Mr.
Raber had bought another car. The damages claimed by Mr. Raber would have zeroed out the
repair bill and he would have ended up with a repaired Volvo for free, a clearly inequitable
result. The small claims court did not error by rejecting this claim.
ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the small claims court is affirmed.
Dated this O _ day of September 2015.

Mew, Wik denedud
Mary Mi 2s Teachout
Superior Judge