ILNews

COA: Storage fees capped per statute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the owner of a car involved in a fatal accident must pay storage fees to a towing company, but those fees must be capped at $1,500.

In Northwest Towing & Recovery v. State of Indiana, No. 18A02-0905-CV-409, Northwest Towing & Recovery appealed the denial of its motion to correct error after the trial court capped its storage-fee lien at $1,500 based on Indiana Code Section 32-33-10-5(b). The company had the lien against Frances Brinkley, the owner of the car involved in a fatal accident caused by her son. Brinkley cross-appealed arguing she shouldn't have had to pay anything to have her car returned.

The accident happened Oct. 8, 2006, and Northwest - based on a contract with the city of Muncie - towed the vehicle and stored it at a rate of $20 a day. The car remained in storage until the court ordered on Oct. 28, 2008, that the car be returned to Brinkley.

The trial court concluded Brinkley should be responsible for storage from the time of her son's sentencing in August 2007 until the car was released, but because of the statutory cap, she would only have to pay $1,500, plus other miscellaneous costs totaling $250.

Northwest argued the trial court order can't stand because Brinkley wasn't a party to the criminal proceedings, violating Indiana Trial Rule 17(A). The Court of Appeals decided that Northwest waived the issue because it invited the alleged error and never objected under Trial Rule 17(A) until the trial court ruled against it, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The appellate court also affirmed that I.C. Section 32-33-10-5(b) is applicable and capped the storage costs at $1,500. Northwest argued that I.C. 9-22-5-15(a) could apply - which has no caps - but that statute is only applicable when work or storage is done at the request of the owner, wrote the chief judge. Brinkley never requested her car be stored at Northwest - the Muncie Police Department originally requested it and her son asked for continued storage until his trial so the car could be preserved for evidence.

To allow Northwest to proceed under I.C. 9-22-5-15(a) "would permit Northwest to proceed with a lien that would effectively ignore the specific limitations and circumvent the statutory cap that became effective in 2005," wrote Chief Judge Baker.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the order that Northwest title the car back to Brinkley.

The appellate judges ruled Brinkley should be responsible for the $1,500 in storage fees even though her son caused the fees to be incurred. She never requested the car returned to her after her son was sentenced, so the trial court could reasonably infer she permitted the continued storage of the car.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT