Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P decided to rent storage space at a facility operated by D. At the time, she entered into a lease with D, P explained to the person showing her the facility that she had a large amount of rare furniture, keepsakes, heirlooms, and other personal belongings which she needed to store because of her divorce. After executing the lease, P stored her personal belongings at D's facility. D put a lock on her storage space. P and one of the experts retained by D put the replacement value of the items P stored at approximately $196,000. A second expert called by D stated the items would probably have a fair market value of 25 to 35 percent of their replacement value. P was required to pay D $130 a month. P fell behind in her rent and D sent her a preliminary lien notice and a later notice of lien sale under the provisions of the California Self-Storage Facility Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 21700 et seq.). In August 1991 P paid D $500 and was told the payment brought her account current. In January 1992 P again failed to make her rent payment. At some point in late January 1992, D employees cut the lock and replaced it with their own lock. D also arranged for an auctioneer to inspect the goods in P's unit. Instead of giving P another preliminary lien notice and another notice of lien sale, D placed an advertisement for an auction in the San Diego Daily Transcript. The advertisement provided P's full name, her unit number and a detailed description of the items in her unit. D sent P a copy of the advertisement and a note which stated that she would have to bring her rent current by February 10, 1992, in order to avoid the auction. On February 4, 1992, a thin woman and an elderly man came to the storage facility, and the woman falsely claimed to be P. The impostor tendered payment of the $336 in rent then due; without asking the woman to produce any identification, D employees removed the company's lock from P's unit. The employees watched as the impostor and her companion then loaded P's belongings into a U-Haul truck and left the scene. On February 6, 1992, D received a cashier's check from P in the amount of $526. On February 7, 1992, Gonzales called D to verify receipt of her payment. The employee then told P that someone had come to D on February 4, paid the outstanding rent and emptied the storage unit. P was emotionally devastated. She did not leave her room for a week after hearing the news. She went to her office supply store on February 12 but hid in the back room crying. She left the business that day and never returned. She eventually filed for bankruptcy. P stopped participating in community events, and the 1992 debutante ball for the Maria Clara de Pilipinas Sorority was canceled because P could not function. Gonzales was treated by a therapist from February 1992 to August 1992. The therapist diagnosed P as suffering from depression. The therapist saw P again in 1994 and again diagnosed her as suffering from depression. The therapist noted Gonzales continued to experience weight gain, withdrawal from friends, family, and activities, sleep disruption, uncontrollable crying and difficulty leaving home. P sued D for breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and conversion. The trial court directed a verdict to P for D's negligence and conversion. As a matter of law, D had no right in January 1992 to take possession of or attempt to sell P's property without again providing her the preliminary lien and notice of lien sale required by the California Self-Storage Facility Act. The jury returned a verdict finding that D had breached its contract with Gonzales, causing her $59,559 in damage; the jury found that she had suffered $59,559 in property damage as a result of D's negligence and $232,582 in emotional distress damages. The jury also awarded Gonzales $87,466 in damages for conversion; unlike the damages for negligence, the conversion damages included interest and time expended in attempting to recover the lost goods. D appealed. D contends the jury should not have been permitted to award P damages for her emotional distress.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co