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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT