This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sought to have his vehicle repaired by an automotive repair shop operated by Service (Ds). An employee of the shop informed P that his vehicle did not pass the safety check because of 'transmission problems.' P authorized Ds to install a rebuilt transmission, which he was told would cost approximately $ 2,100 to $ 2,250. P authorized the work but wanted, prior to installation of the transmission, to review the receipt for the rebuilt transmission in order to ensure that a rebuilt transmission, rather than a used one, was to be installed. D eventually informed P that his vehicle was ready to be picked up and was further informed that the total amount due for the installation of the rebuilt transmission was $ 2,478.95. P refused to pay because D had not contacted him prior to installing the transmission, as he had requested. Ds told P that it would retain his vehicle until he paid for the repair work. Ds began billing P for the amount it believed was due for the installation, as well as for accrued storage fees calculated at $ 20.00 per day. P sued Ds for the return of his vehicle, special damages for the cost of renting an automobile while the repair shop retained his vehicle, and attorney's fees and costs. Ds filed a counterclaim seeking the cost of repairing the vehicle in the amount of $2,478.96, as well as storage fees in the amount of $2,260.00. The trial court concluded that the lien imposed upon P's vehicle was unlawful. The district court dismissed Ds' counterclaim, ruled that the installed transmission must remain in the vehicle, and ordered Ds to return P's vehicle to him. The court also awarded P 'loss of use' damages for the period of time during which the shop had wrongfully retained possession of his vehicle. The time involved was from June 2, 1996 and August 29, 1998, and calculated at $10.00 per day, the total amount of $6,970.00 was awarded for loss of use. Ds appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that 'replevin was not available to P unless he first paid for the reasonable value of the repair services performed.' The ICA further held that P was not entitled to 'loss of use' damages, and, 'in light of [its] disposition of this appeal.' P appealed. The court held that the ICA erroneously ruled that P could not maintain a replevin action against Ds. The matter was remanded to the ICA in order for it to consider the points of error that Ds had raised on appeal with respect to the district court's judgment awarding P'loss of use' damages. On remand, the ICA held that the district court's award of 'loss of use' damages was excessive because they must be capped by the value of [his vehicle] at the time it was placed under lien. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.