Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment rulings arising from the theft of approximately $80,000 from Thomas Montgomery's residence. The court affirmed judgment for Leonard Devoid, Elizabeth Witham, and the Leonard Devoid Revocable Trust on conversion and aiding-and-abetting claims, while upholding Carl Devoid Sr.'s liability for $10,000. The court addressed the Restatement factors for conversion, substantial assistance and proximate cause, and the use of party-opponent admissions under Vermont Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Witham, Leonard, and the Leonard Devoid Revocable Trust were liable for conversion based on their temporary handling of stolen money, later concealment, or storage of vehicles purchased with stolen funds.
- Whether Witham and Leonard substantially assisted Carl Jr. or Carl Sr. in committing or perpetuating the conversion so as to be liable for aiding and abetting or civil conspiracy.
- Whether Carl Sr. was properly held liable for conversion of the $10,000 he received from Carl Jr.
- Whether summary judgment could determine that Carl Sr. was liable for the entire $80,000 stolen from Montgomery.
Holdings
- Witham and Leonard were not liable for conversion because their control over the money was temporary and limited, they did not intend to assert dominion inconsistent with Montgomery's ownership, and their subsequent conduct did not significantly interfere with Montgomery's right to control the money.
- Summary judgment for Witham and Leonard was proper because their conduct did not constitute substantial assistance to the tortfeasor and was too remote and tenuous to provide a necessary causal link to the conversion.
- Summary judgment holding Carl Sr. liable for conversion of the $10,000 was proper.
- Summary judgment limiting Carl Sr.'s liability to $10,000 was improper because material facts remained disputed concerning his role in the broader conversion and the extent of his liability.
Key quotations
“The key element of conversion, therefore, is the wrongful exercise of dominion over property of another.” (915 A.2d at 274)
“one may be liable for conversion even absent knowledge that the property belongs to another; nevertheless, the good faith of the defendant, while not determinative in and of itself, may be a factor in determining whether liability for conversion is appropriate.” (915 A.2d at 277)
“Confronted with evidence indicating that he had converted at least $10,000 of the money stolen from Montgomery, Carl Sr. cannot refuse to answer questions regarding the source of the money, and at the same time claim that the court is precluded from making the only reasonable inference possible from the evidence submitted in support of Montgomery's motion for summary judgment.” (915 A.2d at 281)
Factual background
Approximately $80,000 in cash was stolen from Thomas Montgomery's home by Carl Devoid, Jr. Carl Devoid, Sr. received $10,000 from his son and arranged for Leonard Devoid and Elizabeth Witham to exchange the cash for checks, which he used to pay off a vehicle loan. Leonard and Witham later learned or were told that the money came from the theft, lied to police about the transaction, and Leonard allowed vehicles purchased with stolen funds to be stored on his property. Carl Sr. also removed property from Carl Jr.'s residence before execution of a search warrant.
Procedural history
Montgomery sued Carl Devoid, Jr., Carl Devoid, Sr., Wayne Devoid, Leonard Devoid, Elizabeth Witham, and the Leonard Devoid Revocable Trust. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court held that Witham, Leonard, and the Trust were not liable; Carl Sr. was liable for conversion of $10,000; and Carl Jr. and Wayne were liable for the full $80,000. Montgomery appealed the rulings denying liability against Witham, Leonard, and the Trust and limiting Carl Sr.'s liability, while Carl Sr. cross-appealed the $10,000 judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings concerning Montgomery's claim that Carl Sr. should be jointly and severally liable for an amount exceeding $10,000. The summary judgment in favor of Witham, Leonard, and the Trust, and the judgment holding Carl Sr. liable for $10,000, remain affirmed.