Opinion
A22-0785
03-03-2023
Accede, LLC, Appellant, v. Derek Stutz, et al., Respondents.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-21-2106
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2015, Accede, LLC, sold a condominium unit to Derek Stutz and Tea Rizvic on a contract for deed. Stutz and Rizvic closed on the purchase and obtained title in 2019. Shortly before the closing, Accede demanded that Stutz and Rizvic return the appliances, which had been installed before Stutz and Rizvic moved into the condominium unit and had been continuously used by them. After Stutz and Rizvic refused to return the appliances, Accede commenced this action against them, asserting claims of conversion, civil theft, and quantum meruit. After a court trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Stutz and Rizvic. We affirm.
2. The district court found in favor of Stutz and Rizvic for two reasons. First, the district court determined that Accede's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on a prior lawsuit between the parties. Second, the district court found that Accede did not satisfy its burden of proof on the issue of damages.
3. In its principal brief, Accede challenges only the first basis for the district court's decision, res judicata, and does not argue that the district court erred by finding that Accede did not satisfy its burden of proving damages. At the outset of oral argument, Accede reiterated that the only issue on appeal is res judicata. But the district court's second basis for its decision is an independent basis for the judgment. Because Accede did not challenge the district court's second basis for entering judgment in favor of Stutz and Rizvic, the second basis is an independent basis for affirming the judgment. See Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A., 842 N.W.2d 10, 17 (Minn.App. 2013) (concluding that unchallenged basis for granting summary-judgment motion was independent basis for affirmance), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2014).
4. In its reply brief, Accede argues that the evidence in the trial record is sufficient to allow a determination of the amount of its damages. If an argument for reversal is not raised in an appellant's principal brief and is raised for the first time in the reply brief, an appellate court will deem the argument to have been forfeited and will not consider it. Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860, 887 (Minn. 2010); State v. Yang, 774 N.W.2d 539, 558 (Minn. 2009); Hunter, 842 N.W.2d at 17. Accordingly, we will not consider Accede's untimely argument that there is sufficient evidence of damages.
5. Even if we were to consider Accede's untimely argument concerning damages, we would conclude that the argument is without merit. "The general measure of damages for wrongful conversion of property is the market value of the property at the time of conversion." Fawcett v. Heimbach, 591 N.W.2d 516, 520 (Minn.App. 1999). In a civil action, the plaintiff generally has the burden of proving damages. Canada by Landy v. McCarthy, 567 N.W.2d 496, 507 (Minn. 1997). This court will not reverse a district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013).
6. In its findings of facts concerning damages, the district court found that Accede "did not provide any documentary support for the cost of the appliances"; that Accede's principal, Andrew Brenner, testified about the brands of the appliances but did not provide the specific models; that Brenner's testimony was based solely on his "personal memory of the appliances he had purchased more than six years earlier"; and that the sum of the purported values of each appliance did not add up to the total amount of damages sought. The district court expressly found Brenner to be "not credible." For these reasons, the district court concluded that Accede did not satisfy its burden of proving damages. We have reviewed the trial transcript and have confirmed that the district court's findings and conclusions are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. We note Accede's argument that Stutz's testimony provides an evidentiary basis for a damages award, but Stutz's testimony lacks evidentiary value for the same reasons that Brenner's testimony lacks evidentiary value.
7. Because the district court's second basis for entering judgment in favor of Stutz and Rizvic is a sufficient basis for affirmance, it is unnecessary to consider and resolve Accede's argument that the district court erred by concluding that Accede's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on a prior lawsuit between the parties.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.