Boone v. Top Dollar Pawn Shop of Bossier, LLC

Citations: 188 So. 3d 1093; 2016 La. App. LEXIS 329; 2016 WL 740297Docket: No. 50,493-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 23, 2016; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Top Dollar Pawn Shop of Bossier, LLC, appeals a trial court judgment ordering it to pay Plaintiff Betty Boone $14,000 in damages, legal interest since the demand, and expert witness fees of $1,175. The case involves two loans made by Plaintiff in 2018, totaling $1,395, secured by pawned jewelry. Plaintiff claimed that after partially paying off the first loan, she was unable to retrieve her jewelry, which Defendant stated was no longer available. She alleged that Defendant violated Louisiana law by not exercising reasonable care over her pledged items and failing to return them after the loans were settled.

Plaintiff testified about the sentimental value of the jewelry, some of which belonged to her deceased husband. An expert, Mr. Ralph Forrester, assessed the jewelry's replacement value at $27,500 and fair market value at $19,300, based on descriptions, photographs, and consultations with local jewelers. Despite objections from Defendant regarding the validity of Forrester's appraisal methodology, the trial court accepted his testimony. Defendant argued that Plaintiff could not claim ownership of all the jewelry pledged, suggesting she lacked the right to pawn it. The trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff was ultimately affirmed.

The trial court dismissed the Defendant's argument regarding Plaintiff's ownership of the jewelry, stating she had either received it from her husband or son after her husband's death, thus making it hers to pledge. The court found the Defendant liable for the loss of the jewelry and ordered post-trial briefs on damages. Subsequently, the court awarded Plaintiff $14,000 for replacement costs and $1,175 for expert witness fees. The Defendant appealed, contesting the judgment, while Plaintiff sought an increase in the awarded amount to either $27,500 or $19,300.

After the appeal, the Defendant filed an exception of no right of action, arguing that Plaintiff lacked ownership of all the jewelry and could not legally pledge it, citing the sworn descriptive list from her husband's succession that did not include the items. In response, Plaintiff asserted her ownership derived from her husband’s death and gifts from her son. The exception of no right of action, which can initially be filed in the appellate court, assesses whether a plaintiff has a legitimate interest in the cause of action. The Louisiana Civil Code stipulates that a pledge can only be made on property the pledgor owns.

During the trial, Plaintiff testified that some jewelry was hers and some belonged to her husband before his death, but she possessed all the jewelry afterward. The court found no evidence contradicting her ownership on the date of the pledge, ruling the Defendant's exception meritless.

Regarding the merits, Louisiana law mandates that a pawnbroker must return pledged items upon full payment unless they are in custody of law enforcement. The Defendant argued that Plaintiff must prove the replacement value of the lost items and that she had paid the full amount owed. The Defendant claimed Plaintiff did not meet her burden of proof since she admitted to not paying the full amount for one transaction.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to establish the replacement value of the pledged jewelry in two transactions, criticizing the expert testimony of Mr. Forrester as flawed due to unsupported assumptions and lack of personal inspection of the jewelry. Defendant argues that his opinions were based solely on Plaintiff's self-serving statements, thereby lacking sufficient factual basis as required by La. C.E. art. 702. It claims that the only market value available to Plaintiff was the amount paid at the pawn, which was $925, while Plaintiff asserted the replacement value exceeded $20,000. Defendant emphasizes that the reliable evidence of value is on the pawn tickets, which Plaintiff authorized by signing the loan agreement. Additionally, Defendant challenges the admission of certain hearsay evidence, including Internet printouts and third-party invoices, arguing they should have been excluded due to lack of authentication.

In response, Plaintiff requests an increase in the judgment amount to either $27,500 (replacement value) or $19,300 (fair market value), contending that Defendant did not provide any counter-evidence to her expert's valuations. She defends the trial court’s acceptance of Mr. Forrester as an expert based on his qualifications, asserting that Defendant's negligence in caring for the jewelry limited his ability to conduct an appraisal. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court correctly admitted sales receipts and Internet descriptions due to the lack of physical jewelry to evaluate, attributing this to Defendant’s negligence. She claims to have met the statutory requirements of La. R.S. 37:1804(9) to prove payment of the first loan and her attempts to repay the second, which were obstructed by Defendant's agents. Furthermore, she contends that the pawned jewelry was not scrap and that the valuation on the pawn ticket was solely from Defendant’s employee. The owner of Defendant, Mr. John Vice, testified on its behalf but did not have direct dealings with Plaintiff. Finally, it is noted that a district court's factual findings are upheld on appeal unless deemed clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous, referencing relevant Louisiana case law.

To reverse a trial court's factual determination, an appellate court must find that the trial court's finding lacks a reasonable factual basis and is clearly wrong. Even if the appellate court believes it would have weighed the evidence differently, it cannot reverse if the findings are reasonable based on the entire record. The appellate court must defer to the trial court's evaluations of witness credibility, as only the trial court can perceive the nuances of demeanor and tone that influence understanding. When there are two permissible interpretations of evidence, the fact finder's choice cannot be deemed manifestly erroneous.

A trial court has discretion to evaluate expert testimony similarly to other witnesses, determining the weight of the testimony based on the expert's qualifications and the facts underlying their opinions. In this case, the trial court found no manifest error in its assessment of the expert witness’s testimony and methodology, and accepted the expert's qualifications in jewelry appraisals. The court allowed certain documents into evidence not for their truth but as tools used by the expert in valuation. The expert provided sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the plaintiff proved her case and was entitled to $14,000 for the jewelry's replacement value.

The defendant contested the reasonableness of the $1,175 awarded for expert witness fees, arguing it was excessive given the expert's hourly rate and the duration of his testimony. The plaintiff countered that the trial court has significant discretion in awarding expert fees, and the amount granted reflected four hours of work at the stated hourly rate, plus additional preparation time.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding expert fees. Expert witnesses are entitled to compensation determined by the court and taxed as costs to the losing party, as per La. R.S. 13:3666 and relevant case law. The trial judge has significant discretion in setting these fees and is not obligated to adhere to the expert's charges. Factors influencing the fee determination include the time spent testifying and preparing, the expert's qualifications, the complexity of the case, and the usefulness of the expert's contributions. In evaluating Mr. Forrester's work related to property lost due to the Defendant's negligence, the court found no abuse of discretion in awarding $1,175 for his services. Consequently, the trial court's judgment of $14,000 in favor of Plaintiff Betty Boone against Defendant Top Dollar Pawn Shop of Bossier, LLC, along with legal interest and costs, is affirmed. The appeal costs are assessed against the Defendant. The court also noted an error in naming Mr. Vice as "Mr. Bice" in the record.