Lynn Gildersleeve v. Steve Young d/b/a Young's Towing

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/30/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090034 Lynn G i l d e r s l e e v e v. Steve Young d/b/a Young's Towing Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-900518) PER CURIAM. The machinery, former owner Lynn G i l d e r s l e e v e judgment o f t h e Mobile tenus of various proceeding, items ("the o w n e r " ) , Circuit Court of tree-service appeals entered, after from a an o r e i n t h e owner's a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e o p e r a t o r 2090034 of who a towing and s t o r a g e service, Steve Young ("the t o w e r " ) , does b u s i n e s s u n d e r t h e t r a d e name "Young's T o w i n g " ; i n the judgment under review, the t r i a l court, without stating f i n d i n g s of f a c t , determined t h a t t h e t o w e r was n o t l i a b l e t o the claim asserted was transferred owner on (conversion). pursuant 1 the sole This appeal t o A l a . Code 1975, § The t e s t i m o n y Illinois at t r i a l r e s i d e n t who by the owner to this court 12-2-7(6). indicates operated a t h a t t h e owner was business involving an tree s e r v i c e and r e m o v a l ; a f t e r p e r f o r m i n g some w o r k i n t h e M o b i l e area i n l a t e 2007 o r e a r l y 2008, t h e owner l e f t a number o f p i e c e s o f m a c h i n e r y on r e a l p r o p e r t y owned e i t h e r b y Macadoo G i l d e r s l e e v e , t h e owner's u n c l e , o r b y Kenny G i l d e r s l e e v e , t h e owner's c o u s i n , t h a t was located i n Mobile. p r o p e r t y was a p p a r e n t l y o c c u p i e d b y Kenny However, t h e Gildersleeve. A l t h o u g h t h e m a c h i n e r y was i n t h e t o w e r ' s p o s s e s s i o n a t t h e t i m e t h i s a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d on A p r i l 4, 2008, and a l t h o u g h t h e c o m p l a i n t was d e n o m i n a t e d as s o u n d i n g i n d e t i n u e , t h e m a c h i n e r y was s o l d a t a u c t i o n on A p r i l 7, 2 0 0 8 ; t h u s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was no f o r m a l amendment t o t h e c o m p l a i n t , c o n v e r s i o n was, b y t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t h e p r o p e r l e g a l t h e o r y u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w f o r t h e owner t o a s s e r t t o s e e k damages. See g e n e r a l l y B a r k s d a l e v. S t r i c k l a n d & H a z a r d , 220 A l a . 86, 124 So. 234 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . 1 2 2090034 On January himself 8, 2008, Kenny Gildersleeve, t o be t h e owner o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y , representing telephoned the t o w e r , s t a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n u n a b l e t o p e r s u a d e t h e owner t o remove t h e m a c h i n e r y f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y , t o w e r come t o t h e p r o p e r t y property; and r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e a n d remove t h e m a c h i n e r y f r o m t h e t h e tower c o m p l i e d , i m m e d i a t e l y h a u l i n g away a 10- t o n t r a i l e r a n d a 1989 m o d e l I n t e r n a t i o n a l b r a n d tandem that other functioned items, Caterpillar as a d e b r i s including brand loader a John front-end and l a t e r Deere brand loader, truck returning f o r "skid steer," a n d a boom t r u c k . a The t o w e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n i n f o r m e d a t t h a t t i m e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r s o n who owned t h e m a c h i n e r y b u t t h a t he h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n who owned t h e m a c h i n e r y was a cousin Further, o f Kenny Gildersleeve t h e tower t e s t i f i e d who that lived "near" Illinois. t h e m a c h i n e r y had been i n p o o r c o n d i t i o n a n d he h a d assumed t h a t t h e m a c h i n e r y h a d b e e n a b a n d o n e d b e c a u s e most o f i t w o u l d n o t o p e r a t e p r o p e r l y . On J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2008, a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks after the t o w e r h a d f i r s t removed m a c h i n e r y f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e owner appeared i n p e r s o n a t t h e tower's b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s and sought possession of the machinery. The t o w e r i n f o r m e d t h e owner o f 3 2090034 the to t o w i n g and a c c r u e d d a i l y s t o r a g e c h a r g e s t h a t w o u l d need be p a i d b e f o r e t h e p r o p e r t y c o u l d be r e c l a i m e d , q u o t i n g a f i g u r e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 2 , 5 5 5 , and i n f o r m e d t h e owner t h a t he would need t o prove h i s ownership o f t h e m a c h i n e r y ; a c c o r d i n g to t h e t o w e r , s u c h d o c u m e n t a t i o n w o u l d have shown t h e owner's address. visit However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t o w e r , t h e owner on this "was n o t i n t h e mood t o g i v e any k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n , " b u t s i m p l y s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p r o o f o f h i s o w n e r s h i p o f t h e machinery. premises The several owner days returned later with to the tower's business funds e q u a l t o the quoted amount, b u t he was i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e f u l l amount n e c e s s a r y t o r e c l a i m the machinery had i n c r e a s e d because s e v e r a l days had e l a p s e d and a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e f e e s h a d a c c r u e d . of The amount t h a t new q u o t e d f i g u r e i s t h e s u b j e c t o f some d i s p u t e , w i t h the owner t e s t i f y i n g t h a t i t was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,000 a n d t h e t o w e r t e s t i f y i n g t h a t i t was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $4,500 ( w h i c h w o u l d be more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t o w e r ' s t e s t i m o n y t o h a v i n g l e v i e d d a i l y s t o r a g e f e e s o f $200). that his F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h e owner p r e s e n t e d a d d i t i o n a l documentation revealing a d d r e s s o r d e m o n s t r a t i n g h i s o w n e r s h i p o f t h e m a c h i n e r y on t h a t subsequent visit. 4 2090034 Further, according and h i s o f f i c e manager to the trial testimony of ( h i s m o t h e r ) , soon a f t e r t h e the tower machinery had b e e n t o w e d a t t h e b e h e s t o f Kenny G i l d e r s l e e v e , t h e contacted the information least Alabama Department concerning some items numbers, b u t of was the which ownership tower also Revenue of and the machinery, informed at t h a t time t h a t t h a t testified denied (contrary having w i t h t h e owner's i d e n t i f y i n g The to the 12, 2008, items, been p r o v i d e d circulation stating owner's had the items b e e n a b a n d o n e d and held to s e l l the p r o p e r t y tower, t h i s auction on trial the items card information. i n Mobile that department a business t o w e r c a u s e d a n o t i c e t o be p u b l i s h e d of general at owned t h e i t e m s o f m a c h i n e r y . t e s t i m o n y ) t h a t l i c e n s e p l a t e s were n o t p r e s e n t o f m a c h i n e r y and requested had m o t o r - v e h i c l e - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n had no i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g who The of tower i n a newspaper C o u n t y on M a r c h 5 and of machinery, among March other t h a t a p u b l i c a u c t i o n would on A p r i l 7, 2 0 0 8 . went f o r w a r d and the 2 According items of to be the machinery A c c o r d i n g t o the tower, the newspaper a l s o l i s t s upcoming a u c t i o n s on i t s I n t e r n e t s i t e , and p u r c h a s e r s o f c e r t a i n i t e m s o f m a c h i n e r y s o l d a t t h e a u c t i o n were d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g b e e n r e s i d e n t s o f n o r t h A l a b a m a and h a v i n g f o u n d o u t a b o u t t h e a u c t i o n v i a the I n t e r n e t . 2 5 2090034 were s o l d t o t h i r d p a r t i e s ; h o w e v e r , t h e t o w e r a l s o that the t o t a l sale p r i c e or every item testified had n o t immediately b e e n p a i d a n d t h a t he h a d r e t a i n e d , as s e c u r i t y , p o s s e s s i o n o f s e v e r a l o f , a n d u s e o f a t l e a s t one o f , t h e i t e m s o f m a c h i n e r y with the permission of the winning bidders until the entire p u r c h a s e p r i c e was p a i d . On appeal, t h e owner, c i t i n g two s e c t i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a A b a n d o n e d M o t o r V e h i c l e A c t , § 32-13-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ("the AMVA"), conversion contends that t h e tower i s liable under t h e o r y b e c a u s e , t h e owner s a y s , t h e t o w e r f a i l e d t o provide proper selling the machinery Federal C r e d i t Union v. Walker, notice under t h e AMVA at auction. C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , as s t a n d i n g t o t h e owner The owner 679 So. 2d 1075, before cites Global 1078 ( A l a . f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a h o l d e r o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e u n d e r t h e AMVA h a s a d u t y t o q u e r y out-of- s t a t e v e h i c l e r e g i s t r i e s concerning ownership i n f o r m a t i o n may h o l d when t h e h o l d e r resident a of another they i s on n o t i c e t h a t t h e owner may be a state. 3 The owner f u r t h e r asserts that I n 2003, s e v e n y e a r s a f t e r W a l k e r was d e c i d e d , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e amended t h e AMVA b y e n a c t i n g A c t No. 2003-402, 2003 A l a . A c t s , w h i c h was t i t l e d , i n p a r t , " [ a ] n A c t [ t ] o amend ... [ § ] 32-13-4 ... r e l a t i n g t o abandoned motor v e h i c l e s [ ] ... t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue w o u l d 3 6 2090034 the tower h i m s e l f h a d u s e d one o f t h e i t e m s o f m a c h i n e r y (a " c h e r r y - p i c k e r " t r u c k ) d u r i n g an a b o r t i v e v e n t u r e o p e r a t i n g a tree service. However, owner's a p p e a l , jurisdictional i n researching the merits of the t h i s c o u r t h a s become aware o f a f u n d a m e n t a l , b a r t o t h e owner's claim. I n W e a t h e r s p o o n v . T i l l e r y Body Shop, I n c . , 44 So. 3d 447 (Ala. 2 0 1 0 ) , w h i c h was d e c i d e d a f t e r t h e owner h a d f i l e d h i s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f i n t h i s appeal, Weatherspoon that restaurant parking had been a m o t o r v e h i c l e owned b y D e b r a left by her adult son i n a l o t f o r s e v e r a l d a y s was h a u l e d b y a t o w i n g p r o v i d e t h e name a n d a d d r e s s o f t h e owners a n d l i e n h o l d e r s when t h e v e h i c l e h a s b e e n t o w e d ( E m p h a s i s added.) T h a t amendment was r e f l e c t e d i n § 3 2 - 1 3 - 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; as c u r r e n t l y i n f o r c e , § 32-13-4(a)(5) provides that "[t]he person, f i r m , or g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y g i v i n g n o t i c e ... s h a l l o b t a i n f r o m " t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue " i n w r i t i n g " e i t h e r "a s t a t e m e n t , f o r m , o r document l i s t i n g t h e name a n d a d d r e s s o f t h e c u r r e n t owners, r e g i s t r a n t s , s e c u r e d p a r t i e s , and l i e n h o l d e r s o f r e c o r d , i f a n y , f o r t h e m o t o r v e h i c l e " o r "a s t a t e m e n t , f o r m , o r document t h a t t h e d e p a r t m e n t h a s no i n f o r m a t i o n o f r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e c u r r e n t owners, r e g i s t r a n t s , s e c u r e d p a r t i e s , or l i e n h o l d e r s o f r e c o r d , i f any, f o r t h e motor v e h i c l e . " A c c o r d A l a . Admin. Code (Dep't o f Revenue) R u l e 810-5-75.31.02(3) ( " I n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e name a n d a d d r e s s o f t h e c u r r e n t owner, s e c u r e d p a r t i e s , a n d l i e n h o l d e r s o f r e c o r d s h a l l be o b t a i n e d o n l y f r o m t h e [ D ] e p a r t m e n t " o f Revenue (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . Our c o n c l u s i o n as t o t h e t r i a l court's lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , however, o b v i a t e s t h e n e c e s s i t y of c o n s i d e r i n g the e f f e c t of those p r o v i s i o n s of law upon t h e owner's c l a i m . 7 2090034 company t o i t s own l o t ; the towing company, after having a d v e r t i s e d f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e weeks t h a t t h e v e h i c l e w o u l d be sold party. and at a public auction, s o l d the v e h i c l e to a The owner o f t h e m o t o r v e h i c l e s u e d t h e t o w i n g the auction state-law claims purchaser, of a s s e r t i n g , among negligence, other wantonness, third company claims, detinue, c o n v e r s i o n , p u r p o r t e d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e AMVA, a n d f r a u d . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e t o w i n g company's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h t h a t company h a d averred t h a t t h e v e h i c l e owner's c l a i m s were p r e e m p t e d b y a federal statute providing that, with limited exceptions, "a S t a t e ... may n o t e n a c t o r e n f o r c e a l a w , r e g u l a t i o n , o r o t h e r provision having the force and e f f e c t of law r e l a t e d p r i c e , r o u t e , o r s e r v i c e o f any m o t o r c a r r i e r to a ... o r any m o t o r p r i v a t e c a r r i e r , broker, or f r e i g h t forwarder with respect to the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of p r o p e r t y . " In Weatherspoon, t h e t r i a l was a f f i r m e d on a p p e a l . noted that § 14501(c) 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c). c o u r t ' s judgment o f d i s m i s s a l The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i n W e a t h e r s p o o n had been 8 held by t h e U n i t e d States 2090034 Supreme C o u r t 4 and o t h e r f e d e r a l and state c o u preempt s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n of t o w - t r u c k o p e r a t o r s . 456-57. Proceeding from that m a j o r i t y h e l d t h a t the s t a t e - l a w case, which focused on, [ i t s ] tow r e l a t e d to the and "handling duties handling the at Weatherspoon things, of the state towing requirements abandoned the p r o p e r t y vehicles," i t transports," the the transportation federal statute. majority of p r o p e r t y " 44 So. i n W e a t h e r s p o o n , by t o r t claims of conversion S e e Rowe v. New 364, 370-71 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , Wrecker Serv., Inc., bar so 3d a t 458. w h i c h we are (see § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) , d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y t h a t § 1 4 5 0 1 ( c ) amounts t o a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l 4 3d 5 sought "the enforcement of s t a t e laws r e l a t e d t o as t o be p r e e m p t e d by bound 44 So. s of the v e h i c l e s [ t h e t o w i n g company] owed s t e m m i n g f r o m t h e Although other to comply w i t h tows, i . e . , i t s s e r v i c e r e g a r d i n g and e x p r e s s l y t t o r t claims presented i n that among company's " a l l e g e d f a i l u r e regarding premise, r to stemming f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n s hold state-law of tow- H a m p s h i r e M o t o r T r a n s p . A s s ' n , 552 U.S. and C i t y o f Columbus v. Ours G a r a g e & 536 U.S. 424, 430 (2002). S e e , e.g., K e l l e y v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 69 F.3d 1503 (10th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) , Ware v. Tow P r o Custom T o w i n g & H a u l i n g , I n c . , 289 Fed. Appx. 852 ( 6 t h C i r . 2008) (not s e l e c t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e F e d e r a l R e p o r t e r ) , and A . J . ' s W r e c k e r S e r v . o f D a l l a s , I n c . v. S a l a z a r , 165 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. C t . App. 2005). 5 9 t o 2090034 truck operators s u c h as t h e t o w e r i n t h i s does a Texas rely Serv. upon appellate o f D a l l a s , Inc. v. S a l a z a r , 2005), t h a t p r e c i s e l y so h o l d s . case, Weatherspoon d e c i s i o n , A.J.'s Wrecker 165 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. In S a l a z a r , a towing company hauled away a m o t o r v e h i c l e t h a t h a d b e e n p a r k e d away f r o m a marked parking approximately place 60 d a y s . and d e t a i n e d Although t h e motor vehicle for a j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e owner o f t h e m o t o r v e h i c l e on h e r state-law claims chattels, a Texas vacated the t r i a l of theft, appellate conversion, court and t r e s p a s s dismissed to t h e appeal and c o u r t ' s judgment, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d been w i t h o u t jurisdiction t o render a judgment i n the case because o f the pre-emptive e f f e c t o f § 14501(c). S.W.3d a t 450. The r a t i o n a l e i n S a l a z a r i s i n s t r u c t i v e : " U n l i k e a n e g l i g e n c e a c t i o n [ , ] ... t r e s p a s s t o c h a t t e l , c o n v e r s i o n , a n d c i v i l t h e f t have e l e m e n t s closely related t o AJ's nonconsensual towing service. Towing c a r s w i t h o u t t h e o w n e r s [ ' ] consent i s one o f t h e s e r v i c e s A J ' s p r o v i d e s . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e g u l a t o r y i m p a c t o f t h e s e c a u s e s o f a c t i o n c o u l d be significant. I f these claims are allowed t o p r o c e e d , A J ' s c o n c e i v a b l y c o u l d be h a u l e d i n t o c o u r t t o d e f e n d i t s a c t i o n s e v e r y t i m e i t tows a c a r without t h e owner's c o n s e n t . This c o n s t i t u t e s r e g u l a t i o n o f motor c a r r i e r s through enforcement o f s t a t e laws. A l l o w i n g these causes o f a c t i o n t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t motor c a r r i e r s has t h e p o t e n t i a l t o f r u s t r a t e t h e purpose o f t h e preemption s t a t u t e 10 165 2090034 e c o n o m i c d e r e g u l a t i o n . We c o n c l u d e S a l a z a r ' s c l a i m s are preempted because they c o n s t i t u t e enforcement o f s t a t e law r e l a t e d t o t h e towing s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d by AJ's." 165 S.W.2d a t 449. The state-law conversion c l a i m a s s e r t e d b y t h e owner i n this case a g a i n s t t h e tower i s n o t m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t the state-law Salazar conversion t o have been claims preempted held subject-matter against the jurisdiction jurisdiction tower. i n Weatherspoon and by f e d e r a l conclude t h a t , i n l i g h t o f § 14501(c), law. the t r i a l We court may n o t be w a i v e d a lack of thus lacked t o e n t e r t a i n t h e owner's Because from claim subject-matter b y t h e p a r t i e s a n d must be t a k e n n o t e o f b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x mero motu, s e e R i l e y v . Hughes, 17 So. 3 d 643, 648 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d b e c a u s e a court's action jurisdiction taken i n the i s v o i d and w i l l absence not support a t 649, we d i s m i s s t h e owner's a p p e a l C i r c u i t Court t o vacate of trial subject-matter an a p p e a l , see i d . and i n s t r u c t t h e M o b i l e i t s j u d g m e n t and d i s m i s s t h e case. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. All the judges concur. 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.