{
  "id": 4362580,
  "name": "VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., Plaintiff v. SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC., Defendant; SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC. v. VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., and DAVID VASELENIUCK, Individually Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaseleniuck Engine Development, LLC. v. Sabertooth Motorcycles, LLC.",
  "decision_date": "2012-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA11-870",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "543",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 N.C. App. 540"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E.2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "353",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219441
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "439",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "521 S.E.2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "704",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted and emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155615
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "155",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted and emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524451
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "441"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/73/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 422,
    "char_count": 7643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2913882237921979
    },
    "sha256": "18dfbf9cd2ad25e3645374050c27ebe8e8076c329e8b3f54cb66fe3252dabd13",
    "simhash": "1:5af2b773f2eb8573",
    "word_count": 1214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:16:59.313771+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEPHENS and STROUD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., Plaintiff v. SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC., Defendant SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC. v. VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., and DAVID VASELENIUCK, Individually Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BEASLEY, Judge.\nVaseleniuck Engine Development, LLC (Plaintiff) appeals from an 8 November 2010 order and a 4 April 2011 order, both of which grant partial summary judgment to Sabertooth Motorcycles, LLC (Defendant). For the following reasons, we reverse both orders and remand this case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nOn or about 14 September 2006, the parties entered into a contract for services, delivery, and setup of fifty engines for use in custom motorcycles. Defendant paid Plaintiff $87,914 at the time the engines were ordered and another $87,914 when the engines were delivered to Plaintiffs facility. Defendant also paid an additional $55,800.50 for parts upon delivery of the engines. In total, Defendant has paid Plaintiff $231,658.50. However, Defendant still owes Plaintiff a sum of $38,000. Defendant received 15 engines that Plaintiff completed work on, but the rest of the engines remained in Plaintiffs possession.\nPlaintiff asserted a possessory lien on the remaining property by service of notice to Defendant under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-1. Defendant responded, and requested a judicial hearing. In spite of this request, Plaintiff sold three of the engines at auction. On 13 January 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting Defendant was liable for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices, and claiming that it had the right to retain possession of the remaining 35 engines and other property under a valid claim of lien. On 23 April 2010, Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim asserting breach of contract, violation of lien statute N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-4, claim and delivery, conversion/trespass to chattels, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Defendants also included an allegation of the personal liability of David Vaseleniuck for violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 57C-3-30 and an assertion of the right to attorney fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16.1. On 23 August 2010, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to its claim against Plaintiff for violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-4 et seq. This motion was granted by order filed 8 November 2010 (2010 order).\nOn 23 February 2011, Defendant filed another motion for partial summary judgment, this time as to the claims of (i) conversion/trespass to chattels, (ii) claim and delivery, (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practice, and (iv) violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 57C-3-30. This motion was granted with regard to the conversion/trespass to chattels claim and denied for all other claims by order dated 4 April 2011 (2011 order). From these orders, Plaintiff now appeals.\nI.\nFirst, we note that Plaintiff\u2019s brief raises several issues regarding its compliance with our rules of appellate procedure and the interlocutory nature of the 8 November 2010 and 4 April 2011 orders. These issues were resolved in this Court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. As this Court has held that Plaintiff\u2019s appeal from these two orders is properly before us, we turn to address Plaintiff\u2019s substantive arguments.\nII.\nPlaintiff contends that the trial court improperly entered the 2010 order granting summary judgment on Defendant\u2019s claim that Plaintiff violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-4. Specifically, the 2010 order adjudged Plaintiff liable under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-4(g) (2011) which provides that if a lienor \u201cfails to comply substantially with any of the provisions of this section, the lienor shall be liable to the person having legal title to the property[.]\u201d Although the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to raise an inference that Plaintiff failed to substantially comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-4 (2011), \u201c[t]his is a factual issue which can be determined only by the jury\u201d and thus \u201cthe court erred in failing to submit this issue to the jury.\u201d Drummond v. Cordell, 73 N.C. App. 438, 441, 326 S.E.2d 292, 293 (1985). Accordingly, we reverse the 2010 order.\nIII.\nPlaintiff next contends that the trial court erred in entering the 2011 order granting Defendant\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment on the claims of conversion and trespass to chattels. We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-2(a) (2011) mandates that \u201c[a]ny person who . . . alters, repairs, stores, services, treats, or improves personal property other than a motor vehicle or an aircraft in the ordinary course of his business pursuant to a[] . . . contract with an owner or legal possessor of the personal property has a lien upon the property.\u201d Because it is uncontroverted that Plaintiff has altered the condition of all the engines in its possession, and has not been paid in full for this work, Plaintiff is entitled to a possessory lien on each engine.\n\u201cA successful action for trespass to chattel requires the party bringing the action to demonstrate . . . that there was an unauthorized, unlawful interference or dispossession of the property[.]\u201d Fordham v. Eason, 351 N.C. 151, 155, 521 S.E.2d 701, 704 (1999) (citations omitted and emphasis added). \u201cThe tort of conversion is well defined as an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the . . . exclusion of an owner\u2019s rights.\u201d Peed v. Burleson\u2019s, Inc., 244 N.C. 437, 439, 94 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1956) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). To grant Defendant summary judgment on the claims of trespass to chattels or conversion, the trial court had to have found that Plaintiffs possession of the engines was unauthorized. Because we hold that Plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether it has a valid possessory lien over the all the engines in its possession, the trial court\u2019s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendant must be reversed.\nReversed and Remanded.\nJudges STEPHENS and STROUD concur.\n. Plaintiffs brief was served on Defendant on 13 September 2011. Defendant did not file a brief until 20 February 2012, well past the 30 day period allowed in N.C. R. App. P. 13(a)(1) and even after the date that this case was heard. Thus, we did not consider Defendant\u2019s brief while deciding this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BEASLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Knox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey, by Allen G. Brotherton, for Plaintiff-Appellant.",
      "Law Offices of J. Neal Rodgers, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., Plaintiff v. SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC., Defendant SABERTOOTH MOTORCYCLES, LLC. v. VASELENIUCK ENGINE DEVELOPMENT, LLC., and DAVID VASELENIUCK, Individually Defendants\nNo. COA11-870\n(Filed 20 March 2012)\n1. Liens\u2014mechanics\u2019 liens\u2014violation\u2014summary judgment improper\nThe trial court improperly granted summary judgment in a case involving motorcycle engines on defendant\u2019s claim that plaintiff violated the enforcement by lien statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-4. Although the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to raise an inference that plaintiff failed to substantially comply with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-4, that was a factual issue which could have been determined only by the jury.\n2. Conversion\u2014trespass to chattels\u2014valid possessory lien\u2014 genuine issue of material fact\nThe trial court erred in a case involving motorcycle engines by granting defendant\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment on claims of conversion and trespass to chattels. There was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff had a valid possessory lien over all the engines in its possession.\nAppeal by Plaintiff from orders entered 8 November 2010 by Judge F. Lane Williamson and 4 April 2011 by Judge Richard D. Boner in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 January 2012.\nKnox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey, by Allen G. Brotherton, for Plaintiff-Appellant.\nLaw Offices of J. Neal Rodgers, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 550,
  "last_page_order": 553
}