Background
ACAR Leasing Ltd., Inc., doing business as GM Financial, owned a 2021 GMC Sierra that it leased to Dante Foster. After Foster defaulted, ACAR attempted to repossess the vehicle and learned that Toyco Collision LLC had possessed it since June 2022. Toyco supplied documents reflecting varying charges and later notified ACAR that it intended to sell the vehicle under Michigan’s Garage Keeper’s Lien Act to satisfy a claimed lien.
ACAR sued for claim and delivery, statutory conversion, declaratory relief, and an injunction. The vehicle was eventually sold, leaving a conversion dispute. The Wayne Circuit Court ruled that Toyco violated the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act and awarded ACAR $43,825, representing the vehicle’s value less the $5,000 ACAR acknowledged it might owe. After Toyco failed to appear at a settlement conference, the court entered final judgment granting ACAR its remaining relief, including treble damages, costs, and attorney fees under MCL 600.2919a.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Toyco’s challenges to the conversion award, treble damages, costs, and attorney fees all depended on its assertion that it had complied with the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act. But Toyco cited no supporting authority or evidence establishing that ACAR, the vehicle’s owner, requested or consented to the work underlying the claimed lien.
Toyco also failed to address the trial court’s reliance on Joy Oil Co v. Fruehauf Trailer Co, which held that a garage keeper did not establish a statutory lien without proof that the owner requested or consented to the repairs. Because Toyco neither acknowledged nor distinguished that authority and otherwise gave its position only cursory treatment, the appellate court held that Toyco abandoned its challenge to the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A garage keeper asserting a statutory lien must establish that the vehicle’s owner requested or consented to the work supporting the lien.
- An appellant abandons an issue by merely announcing a position without supporting authority, developed analysis, or a response to controlling precedent relied upon below.
- Because each appellate challenge rested on Toyco’s unsupported claim of statutory compliance, the conversion judgment, treble damages, costs, and attorney-fee award were affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that possession of a vehicle and performance of repairs do not, by themselves, establish an enforceable garage keeper’s lien against the titled owner. Repair facilities must be able to prove the owner’s request or consent when invoking the statute.
It also illustrates a significant appellate-practice risk: failing to develop an argument and confront the authority supporting the trial court’s ruling can result in abandonment, leaving the underlying judgment intact without substantive appellate review of the asserted errors.