Lysenko v. Sawaya

7 P.3d 783 (Utah 2000)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lysenko v. Sawaya

Utah Supreme Court
7 P.3d 783 (Utah 2000)

Facts

Mitchell and Lillie Sawaya (defendants) leased property to Burger King so that Burger King could build a restaurant on the property. The lease included a provision allowing the Sawayas to keep any additions or improvements to the property not removed within 15 days after the lease terminated. Burger King built a restaurant and sublet the property to Peter Lysenko (plaintiff). The sublease provided that any personal property Lysenko installed would remain his property after the termination of the sublease. Lysenko bought and installed restaurant equipment, financing the equipment with a bank loan. The bank took a security interest in the equipment. Lysenko operated the restaurant until April 1993, when the sublease was terminated due to his default. At this point, Lysenko lost the right to possess the property. The lease between the Sawayas and Burger King terminated in February 1994. As the termination date approached, the Sawayas notified Lysenko, Burger King, and the bank that any equipment left in the building 15 days after termination of the lease would belong to the Sawayas. Lysenko asked to remove his equipment from the property, but the Sawayas did not allow him to do so because the bank had a security interest in the property. Prior to the termination of the lease, Lysenko acquired the bank’s security interest, therefore gaining the right to remove the equipment, but failed to retrieve it within 15 days of termination. The Sawayas subsequently leased the property to another restaurant owner, who threw away some of Lysenko’s equipment and used the rest of it. Lysenko sued the Sawayas for conversion of the equipment and sought damages equal to the equipment’s value. The trial court found for Lysenko and awarded him the equipment’s salvage value: the value the equipment would have had if it had been removed from the restaurant and sold. The court of appeals affirmed, and Lysenko appealed, arguing that the trial court should have based its damages award on the equipment’s in-place value, the value of the equipment in a currently operating business.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Russon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership