Richmond, Virginia – The Supreme Court of Virginia has made a significant decision regarding a plaintiff’s jury verdict in a case involving Virginia’s abandoned-vehicle law. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals of Virginia was incorrect in its determination that a repair shop owner had rightfully initiated the law to obtain title in his own name. As a result, the plaintiff’s jury verdict has been reinstated.
The Court of Appeals had originally reversed the conversion verdict, arguing that the defendant’s compliance with the statute shielded him from liability. However, the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. In the opinion written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, it was stated that a rational jury could have found that the defendant converted the plaintiff’s vehicle by wrongfully using the abandoned-vehicle process as a pretext to sever the plaintiff’s ownership rights.
The case in question, McCants v. CD & PB Enterprises d/b/a/ Maaco, et al., involved Bryant McCants and a Maaco Collision Repair and Auto Painting business owned by CB & PB Enterprises. McCants had delivered his 1970 Ford Mustang to the shop for repairs, but was dissatisfied with the results. After failed attempts to contact McCants, the owner of the shop, Hanson Butler, began the process to have the Mustang declared abandoned.
Despite the defendants’ argument that they followed the abandoned-vehicle statute and should therefore be shielded from liability, the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the incontestability of Butler’s claims. McCants and Butler presented different interpretations of their conversations and course of conduct, and Butler’s credibility was called into question.
The court held that McCants had entered into a contractual bailment with the repair shop, which was not explicitly revoked by Butler. Moreover, Butler’s use of the abandoned-vehicle process when he wasn’t the contractual bailee of the Mustang further corroborated McCants’ allegations of wrongful conduct. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury verdict, stating that it was not “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”
This decision provides an important clarification on the application of Virginia’s abandoned-vehicle law and highlights the significance of the credibility of witnesses in determining the outcome of cases. It also serves as a reminder to repair shop owners to navigate such legal processes carefully to avoid potential legal repercussions.