## Facts

- Dennis J. Sallaz, an attorney, bought a 1954 Cadillac Eldorado in 1964.
- In 1991, Sallaz’s friend and client Eugene (“Roy”) Rice provided what the evidence indicated was a loan to Sallaz; Sallaz disputed that a loan existed.
- Sallaz nevertheless granted Rice a lien on the Cadillac, and the lien was noted on the vehicle’s 1991 certificate of title.
- There was no evidence the parties agreed to a specific repayment date or that a demand for repayment was required before the obligation became due.
- There was no evidence Sallaz repaid the alleged loan.
- In January 2011, Rice had the Cadillac repossessed by his son, Michael Rice.
- Michael Rice submitted an affidavit of repossession to the Idaho Transportation Department, which issued a new title listing Eugene and Janet Rice as owners.
- Rice later sold the Cadillac for about $25,000.
- Dennis Sallaz and Marcy Fox sued Eugene Rice, Janet Rice, and Michael Rice, seeking return of the Cadillac or $75,000 in damages for conversion.
- Sallaz argued the repossession and sale were wrongful because (a) the lien had been released (he produced a title reflecting a release), and (b) any underlying oral debt was time-barred under Idaho’s four-year statute of limitations for oral contracts.
- Rice disputed the claimed lien release, asserting the release signature was not authentic.
- At trial, after defendants rested, Sallaz moved for a directed verdict on conversion; the district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a special verdict finding Sallaz failed to prove conversion.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by denying Sallaz’s motion for a directed verdict on his conversion claim?
2. Was there substantial evidence from which reasonable jurors could find Rice had a lawful right to repossess the Cadillac (defeating conversion), given the disputed evidence about the loan, repayment, lien release, and statute of limitations?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sallaz’s motion for directed verdict.
- The Court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s special verdict that Sallaz failed to prove conversion.
- The Court held that the record contained conflicting evidence on material facts (including the existence and nonpayment of the debt and the authenticity/effect of the alleged lien release), making the conversion claim improper for resolution as a matter of law.
- The Court declined to award attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 because the appeal was not shown to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, but awarded attorney fees on appeal on a different statutory basis and awarded costs to the prevailing parties.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is improper if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is substantial evidence on which reasonable jurors could reach different results.
- Conversion requires a plaintiff to prove an unauthorized exercise of dominion over the plaintiff’s property; a defendant’s lawful right to possession (including a right to repossess collateral securing an unpaid obligation) defeats conversion.
- When witness credibility and disputed historical facts control whether a debt exists, whether it was repaid, and whether a lien was released, those disputes are for the jury, not the court on a directed-verdict motion.
- A statute-of-limitations defense does not support a directed verdict when the evidence does not conclusively establish the obligation’s terms and accrual facts, and reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions from the record.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence allowed competing findings about whether Rice held an unpaid secured interest and whether Sallaz proved the repossession and sale were unauthorized, the district court correctly denied a directed verdict and left the conversion claim to the jury, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the defense judgment.


Sallaz v. Rice, 384 P.3d 987 (2016)