Debbie Risner v. Nathan Harris

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2001-01041-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; December 27, 2001; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Debbie Risner and Nathan Harris cohabited for seventeen years, after which Risner moved out in November 1999, leaving personal property in a trailer, Harris's convenience store, and a storage unit. In August 2000, a fire destroyed the property at the store. Following the fire, Harris took possession of Risner's belongings from the storage unit and invited her to retrieve them. In November 2000, Risner filed a warrant in general sessions court claiming Harris prevented her from retrieving her possessions. The court ruled in her favor, awarding damages and ordering Harris to return specific items. Harris appealed the decision. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order regarding two items and the property in the storage unit, while affirming the rest of the judgment. Notably, Risner testified that Harris denied her access to her belongings after their separation, a claim supported by her husband, while Harris contended that he allowed her to retrieve items. A former employee testified to hearing Harris instructing Risner to collect her property.

Ray testified witnessing Debbie retrieve her belongings. In August 2000, Nathan's store suffered a significant fire that destroyed various items, including a tanning bed and personal belongings of Debbie. An insurance adjuster stated Nathan could not claim Debbie’s items in his insurance loss, and his total losses exceeded the policy limit of $100,000, allowing him to receive the maximum payout. After the fire, Nathan removed items from their storage unit, discovering some, including a day bed, were damaged. Debbie recounted Nathan's call prompting her to collect her belongings, leading her to realize the extent of the fire damage upon arrival.

In November 2000, Debbie filed a warrant in General Sessions Court for her personal property, resulting in a $10,500 award. Nathan subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court, where a bench trial occurred on March 2, 2001. During this trial, Debbie presented a detailed list of her possessions left with Nathan post-separation, categorized into items stored in his store and in a separate storage unit. The store category was valued at $18,995 and included several high-value items, while the storage category was valued at $4,150.

Debbie testified that some items, like the Dodge Colt automobile and the computer, were collateral for loans she failed to pay due to Nathan's restrictions on their use. Nathan claimed these items were repossessed, and he later acquired them through purchases. He asserted that the two men’s diamond rings listed by Debbie were gifts to him, which she acknowledged on cross-examination. Debbie also stated that the woman’s diamond ring was a gift from Nathan, while she still owed money on one of the rings.

Nathan claimed ownership of a diamond ring given to him by Debbie, asserting that it was returned to him after a temporary separation. He referenced prior court orders from Dyer County that awarded him the ring. Following a trial, the Circuit Court ruled on April 2, 2001, granting Debbie a $7,685 judgment and ordering Nathan to return three diamond rings to her. Although there was no transcript of the trial, the parties submitted a Joint Statement of the Evidence, indicating that the $7,685 judgment represented half the value of certain items, excluding the three rings. The court found that Nathan had prevented Debbie from retrieving her property and was therefore obligated to insure it. 

Nathan appealed the Circuit Court's decision on May 1, 2001, later represented by counsel. He argued that the court erred by not addressing each claimed personal property item separately and not applying bailment law. Nathan maintained that the three rings were his property and contended he should not be liable for property damaged while in storage, seeking to reverse the judgment in favor of Debbie. 

The review of the trial court's decision is de novo, presuming correctness in factual findings unless the evidence suggests otherwise. In personal property recovery actions, the plaintiff must establish entitlement to possession. Nathan challenged the trial court's finding that Debbie was entitled to possession of two men’s diamond rings, asserting they were gifts from her to him. He also claimed the woman’s ring, initially a gift, was returned to him by court order. 

Debbie countered that the trial court was correct in ordering the men’s rings returned to her, citing her outstanding payment obligations for them, and denied Nathan's claim to the woman’s ring, asserting it was a gift. Given the evidence presented, it was concluded that the trial court's finding favoring Debbie regarding the two men’s rings was unsupported, leading to a reversal of the order for Nathan to return those rings.

Evidence regarding the ownership of the woman's diamond ring was contested, with the trial judge responsible for evaluating the credibility of witnesses. The judge favored Debbie's testimony, asserting the ring belonged to her, and this credibility determination is given significant weight on appeal. Nathan's reliance on testimony regarding Dyer County court proceedings lacked supporting evidence, leading to the conclusion that the judge's decision to award the ring to Debbie was not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.

Nathan also challenged the trial court’s award of damages for items damaged in a Dyersburg storage unit, arguing that he did not prevent Debbie from accessing her belongings. It was established that the storage items were damaged while in storage, and Nathan retrieved them only after a fire destroyed his own belongings. There was no evidence that Nathan obstructed Debbie from retrieving her items, leading to the conclusion that the trial court erred in holding him liable for the value of those items. Consequently, the award for damages related to the storage property was reversed.

Furthermore, Nathan disputed the trial court's award of damages for the Dodge Colt and a tanning bed, claiming they did not belong to Debbie. He argued that the Dodge Colt had been repossessed and sold to his father, and that the insurance adjuster’s inclusion of the tanning bed in his claim indicated it belonged to Nathan. Debbie countered that she stopped payments on the Dodge Colt due to Nathan's refusal to allow her access, leading to its repossession. The trial court found that Nathan had indeed prevented Debbie from accessing the car. This factual determination stood despite the subsequent repossession and sale of the vehicle.

Debbie borrowed money to purchase a tanning bed, and there was no evidence presented by Nathan to prove his ownership of it. The trial court credited Debbie’s testimony regarding her ownership and Nathan’s obstruction in retrieving it before its destruction. Consequently, the trial court awarded Debbie the value of both the tanning bed and a Dodge Colt. Nathan contended that items listed in Exhibit 1 were under a gratuitous bailment, which would limit his liability to cases of gross negligence. However, the court found no evidence of gross negligence regarding the loss of these items.

A bailment, defined as the delivery of personal property for a particular purpose, was not established in this case. Although Debbie left some property behind when moving out, the trial court determined that Nathan prevented her from retrieving it and found no evidence of an agreement suggesting Nathan was to keep the property. Nathan's claim of a constructive bailment was also rejected, as he had no lawful right to possess Debbie’s property, and there was no intention from him to safeguard or return it.

The trial court's order was partially reversed, specifically regarding Nathan's obligation to return two men’s diamond rings and the value of certain items categorized as 'storage' in Exhibit 1. However, the rest of the trial court’s ruling was affirmed. Costs were to be shared equally between Nathan and Debbie.