Sallaz v. Rice
Idaho Supreme Court
384 P.3d 987 (2016)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Dennis J. Sallaz (plaintiff) was an attorney who obtained what evidence indicated was a loan from his friend and client Eugene Rice (defendant) in 1991. Sallaz disputed that there was a loan, but he provided Rice with a lien on his 1954 Cadillac Eldorado, which was noted on the certificate of title for the car. There was no evidence that the agreement between the parties included any specific time for repayment or required a demand to be made before the underlying obligation became due. Further, there was no evidence that Sallaz ever repaid the loan. In 2011, Rice had the vehicle repossessed by his son Michael (defendant). Later that year, Sallaz filed suit against Rice, Rice’s wife, and Rice’s son, requesting possession of the Cadillac or $75,000 in damages for conversion. Conversion would mean that Rice improperly took Sallaz’s property, but if Rice had a valid right of repossession due to nonpayment, then Rice’s actions would not constitute conversion. Sallaz also argued that the debt was time-barred because of Idaho’s four-year statute of limitations for oral contracts. At trial, Sallaz moved for a directed verdict, but the trial court denied the motion and the jury returned a special verdict, finding that Sallaz had failed to prove his claim for conversion. Sallaz appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eismann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
