Poppe v. Stockert

Kara and Kent Poppe appealed a district court summary judgment dismissing their conversion claim. The Poppes rented a house from Pamela Hillis for five years, until February 4, 2013 when Hillis served them with an eviction notice for unpaid rent. The district court ordered the Poppes to vacate the property, and entered a money judgment against them for $1,544 for past due rent. The Poppes requested and received permission from Hillis to remain on the property an additional five hours to remove their belongings with the assistance of a moving truck. The Poppes vacated but left some personal property in the house. Hillis arranged for Community Blessings, owned by Theresa Stockert, to pack, remove and store the remaining property. When the Poppes requested to retrieve their remaining property, Hillis referred them to Stockert. Stockert demanded the Poppes pay $4,600 for packing, moving and storage expenses before the property would be returned. The Poppes did not pay Stockert and did not retrieve their property from Community Blessings. The Poppes' washer and dryer remained in the home until sold by Hillis to new renters. The Poppes sued Stockert for conversion and the parties stipulated the Poppes could retrieve undisputed property from Community Blessings. The Poppes were unable to retrieve all of their property from Community Blessings and litigation continued. The Poppes ultimately joined Hillis as a party to the proceedings and moved to amend the complaint to include an exemplary damages claim alleging Hillis' and Stockert's conduct was oppressive or malicious. Hillis filed a cross-motion for summary judgment alleging a statutory right to dispose of the property, which Stockert joined. The district court entered an order denying the Poppes' motion to amend the complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of Hillis and Stockert. The Poppes argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it misinterpreted Hillis' right to remove their personal property from the rental property. Hillis argued she had a right to remove the property under N.D.C.C. 47-16-30.1 and was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Hillis and Stockert did not have a right under N.D.C.C. 47-16-30.1 to dispose of the Poppes' personal property. Because the district court erred in interpreting Hillis' statutory right to dispose of the property, on remand the Poppes could renew their motion to amend the complaint to include exemplary damages. The Court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Poppe v. Stockert" on Justia Law