## Facts

- Adeorike Ogunsanya Duros Inmi-Etti, a Nigerian resident visiting Maryland, purchased a new 1981 Honda Prelude for $8,500 to be shipped to Nigeria.
- Inmi-Etti paid a deposit and, after returning to Nigeria, left the remaining cash with her sister to complete the purchase.
- The dealership delivered the car to Inmi-Etti’s sister’s home, and a Maryland certificate of title was issued in Inmi-Etti’s name.
- The certificate of title was delivered by the dealership to David Butler, an acquaintance who had assisted with the purchase.
- Butler later treated the vehicle as his own and used it in a transaction with Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC, Inc., which asserted rights in the car after Butler defaulted.
- Pohanka obtained judicial process, and Sheriff James V. Aluisi seized the car pursuant to that process, depriving Inmi-Etti of the vehicle despite her record title.
- Inmi-Etti sued Butler, Pohanka, and the sheriff; she obtained a default judgment against Butler, and the circuit court granted summary judgment to Pohanka and the sheriff.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment for Pohanka was proper where evidence (including a certificate of title in Inmi-Etti’s name) supported her ownership and a claim that Pohanka wrongfully caused the vehicle to be seized or retained.
2. Whether a sheriff is liable in tort for seizing property under judicial process regular on its face, even if the seized property belongs to an innocent third party rather than the judgment debtor.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Sheriff Aluisi.
- The appellate court reversed summary judgment for Pohanka and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court concluded the sheriff’s execution of facially valid process insulated him from tort liability, but the record could support liability against the party that procured the seizure.

## Legal Principles

- A sheriff who executes judicial process that is regular on its face and issued by a court with jurisdiction is not liable in tort to the true owner for a seizure made under that process.
- A creditor or other party that procures process causing seizure of property that actually belongs to a third party may be liable for conversion or other wrongful interference with property rights.
- Summary judgment is improper when evidence such as record title and surrounding circumstances would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude the plaintiff owned the property and the defendant’s conduct wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of possession.

## Conclusion

The court protected the sheriff from liability because he acted under facially valid judicial process, but allowed the owner’s claims to proceed against the creditor that initiated the seizure, holding that the ownership evidence created triable issues and defeated summary judgment for the creditor.


Inmi-Etti v. Aluisi, 492 A.2d 917 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985)