Roger Michaud v. Lisa Marie James (2013)

VERDICT

When the plaintiff Roger Michaud bought a car for the defendant Lisa Marie James to use, did he make a gift of the car to her?   Or, did he expect to be paid by her for his costs in buying the car?

This case was tried to the court on July 31, 2013.   The court's findings of fact are based on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, as well as its consideration of the exhibits introduced by the parties.

The parties agree that Mr. Michaud paid $5,517.60 in May 2012 for a 2004 Volkswagen for the use of Ms. James while she was living in Florida.   He also paid $101.00 to register the car in her name in Florida, with himself as “first lienholder.”   The court finds that Mr. Michaud had a reasonable expectation that Ms. James would make payments to him for the use of the car but that there was no meeting of the parties' minds as to the timing and amounts of those payments;  therefore, no contract between them.   The fact that Mr. Michaud did not make a clear demand on Ms. James that she pay for the use of the car or return it to him until November 2012, after their relationship had soured does not change the court' s conclusion.

Ms. James used the car from May 2012 until she relocated to Connecticut in October 2012, and she made no payments to Mr. Michaud for her use of the car.   The car was damaged while in transit to Connecticut and was delivered to a body shop for repair upon its arrival.   While the parties disagreed on the exact period of time the car was in the shop, the weight of the evidence is that Ms. James was without the use of the car from the time she arrived in Connecticut until the end of February 2013.   Ms. James testified that she has not used the vehicle from that time to the present.

In January 2013 Mr. Michaud had the vehicle registered in his name in Florida.   How he was able to accomplish this is a mystery to the court because neither his application for a certificate of title or the certificate of title, itself, is completed according to the directions appearing on the face of both forms.   In particular, the section on the title certificate calling for completion of the “transfer of title by seller” section is blank despite the direction on the form that it “MUST” be completed.  (Emphasis in original.)   Nevertheless, it appears that he, not Ms. James, is now the registered owner of the vehicle in Florida.

Based on these findings of fact the court concludes that Mr. Michaud has failed to prove that there was a contract between the parties, and he has presented no evidence whatever that Ms. James engaged in fraud or conversion in connection with this transaction.   Therefore, judgment will enter for Ms. James on counts one through three of the complaint.

Mr. Michaud has proven, however, that it is more likely than not that he provided a motor vehicle to Ms. James, that the defendant benefitted from having the motor vehicle for her use in Florida, that she did not pay for that benefit and that Mr. Michaud has been injured by her failure to pay.   Therefore, Mr. Michaud has proven the elements of unjust enrichment, and the court finds the issues for the plaintiff on count four of the complaint.

As a remedy for the defendant's unjust enrichment the court ORDERS that the defendant return the motor vehicle involved, a 2004 Volkswagen, VIN # WVWTH63B34P145875, to the plaintiff by no later than August 23, 2013.   The court finds that is contrary to equity for the defendant to retain the benefit that has come to her at the expense of the plaintiff.

The defendant is ORDERED to inform the plaintiff through his attorney, Bruce E. Newman (bnewman@bpslawvers.com ) (860.589.4417), where the vehicle is located.   It will be the plaintiff's responsibility to retrieve the vehicle from that location in whatever manner is necessary, given the vehicle's present condition.   The defendant is ORDERED not to obstruct the plaintiff's retrieval of the vehicle in any way.

As an additional remedy for the defendant's unjust enrichment she is FURTHER ORDERED to pay the plaintiff the sum of $250, which the court finds to be a fair and reasonable allowance for the defendant's use of the vehicle.   When purchased in May 2012, the vehicle was eight years old and had over 150,000 miles on it.   Payment of this amount shall be made by no later than October 31, 2013.

No damages are awarded for the plaintiff's loss of use of the vehicle because the evidence provided to the court does not rise above speculation as to the real value of that loss.

Judgment enters for the plaintiff on count four of the complaint.   Judgment enters for the defendant on counts one, two and three of the complaint.

BY THE COURT

Joseph M. Shortall

Judge Trial Referee

Shortall, Joseph M., J.T.R.