Hildenbrand v. Capital RV Center, Inc.

20100118 Roger Hildenbrand, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Capital RV Center, Inc., Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Gail Hagerty
Nature of Action: Contracts
Counsel:
Appellant: Rudra Tamm
Appellee: David Justin Smith
Term: 10/2010   Argument: 10/07/2010  2:45pm
ND cite: 2011 ND 37
NW cite: 794 N.W.2d 733

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
The issues in this matter are as follows:
A. In a matter brought in conversion, in which the primary relief sought is possession of the vehicle converted, was it error for the Court to refuse to ask the jury to decide to whom possession of the vehicle should be given.
B. Was it error for the Court to fail to ask the jury to decide if there was a meeting of the minds between the parties, that is, if both parties had the same understanding of what essential terms of the written purchase agreement meant.
C. Was it error for the Court to fail to find, as a matter of law and fact, that because the parties had a different understanding of what the word "paintwork" in the contract entailed, the contract must be rescinded on grounds of mistake or lack of meeting of the minds.
D. Where there was no finding by the jury that there was a valid agreement between the parties, and no allegation by Defendant that Plaintiff breached any agreement, was it error for the Court to award possession of Plaintiff's vehicle to the Defendant.
E. Where the Defendant had not alleged in the pleadings that it suffered damages, and where the Defendant had not introduced any evidence of damages at trial, was it error for the Court to award possession of Plaintiff's vehicle to Defendant, as damages.
F. Even if Plaintiff did breach an agreement between the parties, where the parties' agreement did not provide for liquidated damages, there was no evidence that the parties agreed to liquidate damages, and the Defendant offered no evidence of actual damages, did the Court's award of possession of Plaintiff's vehicle to Defendant amount to improper or excessive liquidated damages.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Capital RV forwards the following issues for consideration:
I. Did the District Court correctly determine which questions of fact to be presented to the jury in the special verdict form?
II. Whether the District Court awarded title of the 5th Wheel to Capital RV as damages?


Add Docket 20100118 RSS Add Docket 20100118 RSS

Docket entries:
104/20/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/19/2010
204/20/2010 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
304/22/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 04/21/2010
406/07/2010 DISK - TRA February 11-12,2010 (2 volumes emailed)
506/08/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED February 11-12, 2010 & C.O.S. (Volume I & II) - hand delivered
606/09/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL & SEPARATES
707/14/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
807/14/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)
907/14/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)
1007/14/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
1107/16/2010 Received $31.50 surcharge for ATB & ATA (Receipt #19722)
1207/20/2010 Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD
1307/20/2010 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1408/13/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed) (PDF)
1508/13/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB) (PDF)
1608/13/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)
1708/13/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)
1808/16/2010 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #19774)
1908/19/2010 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD
2008/19/2010 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD
2108/26/2010 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant (e-filed) (PDF)
2208/26/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB) (PDF)
2308/30/2010 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD
2409/21/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2509/23/2010 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Schmalenberger, Allan L.
2610/07/2010 ARGUED: Rudra Tamm; David J. Smith
2710/07/2010 APPEARANCES: Rudra Tamm; David J. Smith
2810/07/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2902/11/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3002/11/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
3102/11/2011 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
3202/15/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
3303/08/2011 MANDATE
3403/10/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/18/2014