Under a Michigan statute, MCL 600.2919a(1)(a), a person damaged as a result of property being converted to another person’s “own use” may recover treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In a recent case of first impression, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the meaning of “own use” in the context of the conversion statute. Aroma Wines and Equipment, Inc. v. Columbia Distribution Services, Inc., - NW2d -, 2013 WL 6670573 (Mich Ct App; December 17, 2013). For parties asserting or defending conversion claims, the case is instructive.

Aroma, a fine wine importer and distributor, contracted with Columbia to store wine in a temperature-controlled warehouse. After Aroma fell behind on storage fee payments, Columbia asserted a warehouseman’s lien on over 8,000 cases of wine. Aroma was then allowed access to small amounts of the wine and then made a $1,000 payment to Columbia. Later, Columbia demanded full payment of the amount owed before any additional wine would be released from storage. Columbia then removed the wine from the temperature-controlled area of the warehouse. Aroma sued, alleging statutory conversion among other claims.

At trial, Columbia moved for a directed verdict on the conversion claim. Columbia argued that it did not benefit from moving the wine, and that in any case “benefit” is not the same thing as “use.” Aroma countered that “use” should be broadly defined, and that Columbia used the wine because Columbia 1) withheld access to the wine to exert economic leverage against Aroma, and 2) moved it from temperature-controlled space and then used that space to store products for other customers.

The trial court granted the motion and entered a directed verdict, citing the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “use,” which means “application or employment of a thing for the purpose for which it is adapted. The trial court reasoned that to “use” a wine one would have to drink or sell it. The Court of Appeals reversed, citing a definition of “use” in Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1992), which is “to employ for some purpose.” Under this broader definition, withholding access to the wine or moving it – even if only to complete a de-racking project in the storage area as Columbia claimed – could be considered an act of “use.” A directed verdict was inappropriate because this factual question should have been put to the jury. (The jury found in Aroma’s favor under a common law conversion theory, an essential element of which does not include conversion for one’s “own use.”) The Court also held that statutory conversion may support an award of treble damages, but such an award is discretionary, and that an award of attorneys’ fees was not automatic based on a finding of common law conversion.