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

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

P contracted with Theodore Zadlo for the towing, storage, and repair of a 1977 Mercedes-Benz 450 SL. Zadlo claimed to be the owner of the car and presented P with a New Hampshire registration certificate for the car bearing Zadlo's name. The car had been stolen in 1981 from a car lot in New Jersey. D had earlier fulfilled its policy obligations by reimbursing the owner of the stolen car $22,000. It thereby had gained title to the vehicle. P kept the car in his garage, where he disassembled it in order to give a repair estimate. He apparently never fully reassembled it. Zadlo periodically returned to check the status of the repair work. In October 1983, the Police notified P that the Mercedes was a stolen car. P moved the vehicle from the lot to the inside of his garage, where it remained for the next several months. D contacted P soon after it learned of the vehicle's location to arrange its pick-up. P refused to relinquish the car until he had been reimbursed for repair and storage fees. D instituted a replevin action. The Court found that P did not have a valid statutory lien since the vehicle was brought to P by someone other than the owner. P sued D, claiming approximately $10,000, most of which was for storage fees. The court entered judgment in D's favor, finding that 'P was not authorized or instructed by the legal or equitable owner of the automobile to perform any repair work on the vehicle.' P tried to file an amendment for unjust enrichment. The court denied the motion and refused to rule on whether P’s efforts had increased the value of the vehicle. 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.

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