Vitaly Morgungenko and Lana Morgungenko v. Dewayne's Paint & Body, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/28/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090230 Vitaly Morgungenko and Lana Morgungenko v. Dewayne's P a i n t & Body, LLC Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-5002) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The o p i n i o n o f S e p t e m b e r 10, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d t h e following i s substituted therefor. 2090230 This this i s the second time these court. procedural The following p a r t i e s have been sets h i s t o r y of the u n d e r l y i n g forth the before factual dispute: "On J a n u a r y 16, 2008, V i t a l y Morgungenko and L a n a Morgungenko filed i n the t r i a l court an o b j e c t i o n to the proposed s a l e of a p u r p o r t e d l y abandoned vehicle by Dwayne's Body Shop ('Dwayne's'). Dwayne's h a d s o u g h t t o s e l l t h e v e h i c l e a t i s s u e p u r s u a n t t o t h e Abandoned Motor V e h i c l e A c t ( ' t h e A c t ' ) , § 32-13-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i n o r d e r t o r e c o v e r s t o r a g e f e e s and t h e c o s t o f c e r t a i n r e p a i r s i t h a d p e r f o r m e d on t h e vehicle. In their objection, t h e Morgungenkos i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were t h e owners o f t h e v e h i c l e a t i s s u e and t h a t Dwayne's h a d p e r f o r m e d r e p a i r s on t h e v e h i c l e t h a t t h e y c o n t e n d e d were n o t a u t h o r i z e d . "The t r i a l c o u r t s c h e d u l e d the matter f o r a hearing. The M o r g u n g e n k o s t h e n f i l e d a m o t i o n seeking permission to f i l e a complaint alleging c l a i m s o f d e t i n u e and c o n v e r s i o n . On J u n e 4, 2008, the trial court entered an o r d e r a l l o w i n g the Morgungenkos t o f i l e t h e i r c o m p l a i n t b u t s p e c i f y i n g t h a t ' t h e t r i a l o f s a i d c o m p l a i n t s h a l l be s e v e r e d f r o m and h e a r d s e p a r a t e l y a p a r t f r o m any h e a r i n g w h i c h may be h e l d ' p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i r o b j e c t i o n t o the s a l e o f t h e p u r p o r t e d l y abandoned v e h i c l e . "Dwayne's moved t o d i s m i s s t h e M o r g u n g e n k o s ' objection and complaint, alleging that the M o r g u n g e n k o s were n o t t h e owners o f t h e v e h i c l e a t i s s u e and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e y l a c k e d s t a n d i n g i n t h i s matter. I n support of i t s motion to d i s m i s s , Dwayne's s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p r i n t o u t o f a document i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Y u r i Morgungenko was t h e r e g i s t e r e d owner o f t h e v e h i c l e . We "The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g . n o t e t h a t a t t h a t h e a r i n g Dwayne's a r g u e d and 2 and 2090230 p r e s e n t e d evidence r e g a r d i n g the i s s u e whether the Morgungenkos had s t a n d i n g t o a s s e r t t h e i r c l a i m s pertaining to the vehicle. "On J u l y 9, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an order f i n d i n g t h e v e h i c l e t o be an ' a b a n d o n e d v e h i c l e , ' as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n § 3 2 - 1 3 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975, a n d o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e v e h i c l e be s o l d a t public auction. I n i t s J u l y 9, 2008, o r d e r , t h e trial court also stated that i t h a d made no d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e s t o r a g e f e e s c l a i m e d by Dwayne's were r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t i t would c o n d u c t a f u t u r e h e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e i f a n y p a r t y requested such a h e a r i n g . "The Morgungenkos f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e c l a i m e d s t o r a g e fees and s e e k i n g a s t a y o f t h e s a l e o f t h e v e h i c l e . Dwayne's f i l e d what i t c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., ' m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the judgment.' The t r i a l court scheduled the p e n d i n g m o t i o n s f o r a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 6, 2008, a n d i t l a t e r r e s c h e d u l e d t h e h e a r i n g f o r S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008. However, on A u g u s t 18, 2008, t h e Morgungenkos filed a notice of appeal. The a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t b y t h e supreme c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 1 " ' [ A ] Rule 59 m o t i o n may be made o n l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o a f i n a l judgment o r o r d e r . ' Malone v. G a i n e y , 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)." 1 Morgungenko v. Dwayne's Body Shop, 23 So. 3d 671, Civ. 672-73 ( A l a . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . The vehicle at issue i s a K e n w o r t h W-900 d i e s e l truck commonly known as a " t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r " o r " s e m i t r u c k . " On o r 3 2090230 a b o u t June 7, 2007, t h e v e h i c l e was i n v o l v e d i n a c o l l i s i o n i n or near T a l l a h a s s e e , the v e h i c l e was Morgungenko's The Florida. At the time of the a c c i d e n t , d r i v e n by Y u r i Morgungenko ("Yuri"), Vitaly brother. record indicates that after the accident, at the d i r e c t i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e ' s i n s u r e r , t h e v e h i c l e was t o w e d t o a Kenworth d e a l e r i n Dothan. The K e n w o r t h d e a l e r , b e c a u s e i t could not perform the necessary had r e p a i r work on t h e v e h i c l e , t h e v e h i c l e towed t o t h e p r e m i s e s Body, LLC ("Dewayne's"), 1 f o r the necessary Morgungenko ("Morgungenko") wife the Kenworth d e a l e r called the r e p a i r s , they the vehicle to o f Dewayne's learned Dewayne's. testified that repairs. when he Paint Vitaly and h i s t o c h e c k on t h e p r o g r e s s t h a t the Kenworth d e a l e r had According v e h i c l e was a l r e a d y a t Dewayne's & t o Morgungenko, of sent the shop when he l e a r n e d o f t h a t transfer. The p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , o r d e r s , and j u d g m e n t i n t h i s matter i d e n t i f y the defendant/appellee as "Dwayne's Body Shop." However, a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d and e x h i b i t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c o r r e c t name o f t h i s p a r t y i s "Dewayne's P a i n t & Body, L L C . " A c c o r d i n g l y , we h a v e c h a n g e d t h e s t y l e o f t h i s o p i n i o n t o r e f l e c t t h e p r o p e r p a r t y , and, f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we w i l l r e f e r t o t h e a p p e l l e e as "Dewayne's. 1 4 2090230 Dewayne Howard, t h e owner o f Dewayne's, the vehicle testified a r r i v e d a t h i s s h o p on J u n e 29, 2007. that registered he owner initially spoke w i t h of the v e h i c l e , vehicle. Howard s t a t e d Dewayne's shop, he that, he spoke w i t h "had t a l k e d w i t h estimate before anything about Yuri, before and Howard s t a t e d was e v e r , you know, c o n f i r m e d Howard d i d n o t p r e s e n t the that a n d t h a t he h a d t a l k e d or nine he b e g a n w o r k i n g on r e p a i r i n g t h e v e h i c l e . that arrived at [ Y u r i a n d Morgungenko] d u r i n g t o one o r b o t h o f them on t h e t e l e p h o n e e i g h t testified to the adjusters for repairs. were [ s i c ] a g r e e d on w i t h t h e e s t i m a t e " before i s the the r e p a i r s the insurance that Howard who a f t e r the v e h i c l e p r e p a r e d a n d s u b m i t t e d an e s t i m a t e that testified him w i t h he b e g a n r e p a i r i n g t h e v e h i c l e . Morgungenko an The r e c o r d that Dewayne's b e g a n t h e r e p a i r p r o c e s s July times estimate indicates 17, 2007. Howard testified that he first f o r the v e h i c l e met Morgungenko on when Morgungenko came t o h i s shop on A u g u s t 2, 2007, t o d i s c u s s t h e r e p a i r s and t h e e s t i m a t e . done on t h e v e h i c l e process and According at that starting on point some 5 t o Howard, t h e o n l y work had been of the "the tear-down repairs on the 2090230 fiberglass." Howard a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t Morgungenko expressed some c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e p a i r s o r t h e q u a l i t y o f the p a r t s t o be u s e d i n r e p a i r i n g t h e v e h i c l e . Howard s t a t e d t h a t t h e n e x t day, F r i d a y , A u g u s t 3, 2007, he received stated the s p e c i a l - o r d e r that, on t h a t parts same d a t e , f o r the r e p a i r s . Morgungenko He telephoned and i n s t r u c t e d h i m t o s t o p w o r k i n g on t h e t r u c k b e c a u s e t h e c h e c k for the r e p a i r s stolen. issued by the insurance company had been Howard t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h a t p o i n t , he s t o p p e d a l l work on t h e v e h i c l e . Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e q u a l i t y o f work Dewayne's h a d p e r f o r m e d on t h e t r u c k and t h a t , after he stopped visited so that repair facility. after that insurance t h e shop, he could he requested transfer Howard t e s t i f i e d request that there that a l l work the v e h i c l e to t h a t he l e a r n e d was no problem be another sometime with the c h e c k , as he s a i d he h a d b e e n l e d t o b e l i e v e , b u t t h a t Morgungenko was n o t h a p p y w i t h t h e r e p a i r work. Howard t e s t i f i e d t h a t on Monday, A u g u s t 6, 2007, Y u r i and Morgungenko c o n t a c t e d f r o m Dewayne's h i m and r e q u e s t e d a b i l l or statement so t h a t t h e y c o u l d p a y Dewayne's and move t h e 6 2090230 truck to another f a c i l i t y f o r r e p a i r s . he b e l i e v e d the o r i g i n a l bill Howard t e s t i f i e d that f o r t h e r e p a i r s p e r f o r m e d and t h e p a r t s o r d e r e d t o t h a t p o i n t was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $21,000. I t is undisputed that a large part of that o r i g i n a l included arrived storage at fees Dewayne's charged shop. from the Howard $21,000 time bill the that stated vehicle i t was Dewayne's p o l i c y t o c h a r g e $150 p e r day f o r s t o r a g e fees i f a v e h i c l e was i n t h e s h o p ; t h e r e c o r d Dewayne's c h a r g e d $55 p e r day f o r s t o r a g e its lot. him to return bill indicates that fees f o r a v e h i c l e parked i n Howard s t a t e d t h a t he p e r s u a d e d a s u p p l i e r t o a l l o w some o f t h e o r d e r e d p a r t s , which reduced the t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $10,000 t o $11,000, i n c l u d i n g Dewayne's charges f o r storage storage fees. However, he r e f u s e d t o remove t h e charges from the b i l l . Morgungenko c o n t e s t e d Dewayne's. t h e amount o f t h e i n i t i a l b i l l Specifically, imposition of the storage Morgungenko fees. to the Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had not authorized him t h a t i t was Dewayne's p o l i c y t o c h a r g e s u c h f e e s a n d t h a t those charges acknowledged the storage objected from could that n o t be each f e e s b u t t h a t Howard h a d removed f r o m amount 7 he the b i l l . demanded told Howard Morgungenko pay 2090230 included storage-fee c h a r g e s a n d t h a t he h a d no a g r e e m e n t w i t h anyone c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v e h i c l e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n of storage fees. Morgungenko and Howard b e g a n n e g o t i a t i o n s t o s e t t l e dispute about the b i l l . their On S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, Morgungenko and Howard r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t , s e t f o r t h on an i n v o i c e , t h a t established the t o t a l due from Morgungenko at $11,676.28. However, Morgungenko d i d n o t p a y t h e amount s p e c i f i e d i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, a g r e e m e n t . signed not Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h e a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e Howard t o l d h i m t h a t , i f he d i d s i g n i t , Howard w o u l d have t h e v e h i c l e t o w e d t o a n o t h e r repair court s h o p ; h o w e v e r , Morgungenko d i d n o t s e e k i n t h e trial t o h a v e t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, a g r e e m e n t i n v a l i d a t e d . B o t h Howard and Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y continued t o a t t e m p t t o s e t t l e t h e i r d i s p u t e a f t e r Morgungenko f a i l e d t o pay t h e amounts s e t f o r t h on t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, i n v o i c e he and Howard h a d s i g n e d . Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he made several o f f e r s f o r payment t h a t storage fees and t h a t those d i d not include amounts w o u l d h a v e c o v e r e d t h e cost of the b i l l e d r e p a i r s excluding the storage testified t h a t he b e l i e v e d amounts f o r on s e v e r a l 8 occasions fees. Howard t h a t he h a d 2090230 r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t w i t h e i t h e r Morgungenko o r Y u r i b u t t h a t t h e b i l l was n e v e r p a i d . he demanded included Howard a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t e a c h amount ever-increasing storage fees. Howard explained: "Q. And e v e r y b i l l you h a d t h a t you t r i e d t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h them h a d $150 a day s t o r a g e fee? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. And t h e r e was no a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n you a n d anyone t h a t t h e y w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a s t o r a g e fee? "A. Any v e h i c l e l e f t on my y a r d i s s u b j e c t t o a s t o r a g e f e e . B e i n g i t a j o b t h a t t o t a l s o u t and no r e p a i r s a r e done, i t ' s a s t o r a g e fee. Any i n s u r a n c e company, a n y b o d y . "Q. know? it's After U n d e r what p r o v i s i o n of the law? Do you "A. I d o n ' t know t h e l a w on t h a t , no, s i r . B u t ... I d o n ' t know t h e l a w on t h a t . " s e v e r a l months o f c o n t i n u e d negotiations, the p a r t i e s did n o t r e a c h an a g r e e m e n t , and i n December 2007 Howard s o u g h t to have Vehicle to had the v e h i c l e sold pursuant t o the Abandoned Motor A c t ("the A c t " ) , § 32-13-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, recover the costs o f t h e r e p a i r s and t h e s t o r a g e charged. 9 fees he 2090230 We n o t e t h a t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l t h a t Morgungenko l a c k e d standing court Dewayne's contended under t h e A c t t o o b j e c t t o t h e p r o p o s e d s a l e o f t h e v e h i c l e b e c a u s e Morgungenko d i d n o t have t i t l e to the vehicle. title the vehicle to testified that was i n Yuri's name. he h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e v e h i c l e p r i c e o f $65,000. that A t the time o f the a c c i d e n t , the from Y u r i f o ra Morgungenko p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g he h a d made a lump-sum payment o f $50,000 p u r c h a s e o f t h e v e h i c l e a n d t h a t he h a d o b t a i n e d the Morgungenko v e h i c l e i n December 2006. toward the possession of Morgungenko t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had made i n s t a l l m e n t p a y m e n t s t o Y u r i f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e purchase p r i c e of the v e h i c l e . his testimony. Y u r i confirmed those f a c t s i n A c c o r d i n g t o Morgungenko a n d Y u r i , Morgungenko p a i d t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e amount owed t o Y u r i on S e p t e m b e r 7, 2007, w h i l e Morgungenko was s t i l l n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h Howard f o r the return of the vehicle. Yuri t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s i g n e d a document t r a n s f e r r i n g t i t l e t o Morgungenko i n S e p t e m b e r 2007. However, for technical reasons, Morgungenko was u n a b l e t o o b t a i n a new t i t l e t o t h e v e h i c l e f r o m t h e S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i . 2 I t appears t h a t M i s s o u r i , the s t a t e i n which t h e v e h i c l e was r e g i s t e r e d , r e q u i r e d t h e v e h i c l e t o be p r e s e n t i n M i s s o u r i i n o r d e r f o r t i t l e t o be f o r m a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d ; b e c a u s e t h e 2 10 2090230 In i t s July 9, 2009, among o t h e r t h i n g s , Act or to the sale Morgungenkos had the t r i a l court t h a t t h e Morgungenkos l a c k e d object to a determination the judgment, standing to t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was a b a n d o n e d u n d e r of the v e h i c l e standing, v e h i c l e " under t h e A c t . found, and t h a t , the vehicle The t r i a l court was even i f t h e an "abandoned a l s o found i n favor o f Dewayne's on t h e M o r g u n g e n k o s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m s a n d on t h e i r claim challenging Morgungenkos t i m e l y The court of the A c t . The appealed. Morgungenkos f i r s t erred matter. the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y i n finding c o n t e n d on a p p e a l t h a t that they h a d no the t r i a l standing i n this A v e h i c l e c a n be t e r m e d an "abandoned m o t o r v e h i c l e " under t h e A c t under s e v e r a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . With regard tothe p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , an "abandoned m o t o r v e h i c l e " i s one w h i c h "has b e e n l e f t for t h e owner, w i t h some other [a] ... r e p a i r m a n reason (emphasis added). b y t h e owner, o r some p e r s o n " In order motor v e h i c l e , n o t i c e § . .. f o r r e p a i r o r f o r 32-13-1(1), to sell acting A l a . Code an a l l e g e d l y o f t h e s a l e must be p r o v i d e d 1975 abandoned to "the v e h i c l e r e m a i n e d on t h e p r e m i s e s o f Dewayne's, t h a t c o u l d n o t be a c c o m p l i s h e d . 11 2090230 c u r r e n t owners, of r e g i s t r a n t s , s e c u r e d p a r t i e s , and lienholders r e c o r d , i f any, f o r t h e m o t o r v e h i c l e , " § 3 2 - 1 3 - 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, and those persons may request a hearing to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e v e h i c l e i s an "abandoned m o t o r v e h i c l e " under not the Act. define § 3 2 - 1 3 - 4 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975. the term "owner." However, The A c t does Title 32, which c o n t a i n s s t a t u t e s r e g a r d i n g m o t o r v e h i c l e s and t r a f f i c , and o f w h i c h t h e A c t i s a p a r t , does c o n t a i n a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e t e r m "owner." "The f o l l o w i n g words and p h r a s e s when u s e d i n [ T i t l e 32] s h a l l , f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s title, have m e a n i n g s r e s p e c t i v e l y a s c r i b e d t o them i n t h i s s e c t i o n , e x c e p t when t h e c o n t e x t o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e s : " "(38) Owner. A person, other than a l i e n h o l d e r , having the p r o p e r t y i n or t i t l e to a v e h i c l e . The t e r m i n c l u d e s a p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o t h e u s e and p o s s e s s i o n o f a vehicle subject to a security i n t e r e s t i n another p e r s o n , but e x c l u d e s a l e s s e e under a l e a s e n o t i n t e n d e d as s e c u r i t y . " § 32-1-1.1, A l a . Code 1975 (emphasis added). F u r t h e r , i n Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 867 So. 2d 1125 (Ala.Civ. App. 2 0 0 3 ) , t h i s c o u r t c i t e d a number o f o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s the term specific "owner" chapters as defined in Title 32. 12 for the purposes A l l of those of of other, definitions 2090230 included, vehicle, i n a d d i t i o n to the holder of the l e g a l t i t l e t h o s e p e r s o n s who to the have c o n t r a c t e d f o r t h e r i g h t t o p u r c h a s e t h e v e h i c l e a n d t h o s e p e r s o n s who have t h e r i g h t o f possession of the v e h i c l e . Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 1132-33 ( c i t i n g § 3 2 - 8 - 2 ( 1 3 ) , § 3 2 - 7 A - 2 ( 1 3 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . I n Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 867 So. 2d a t and § 32-7-2(8), the p a r t i e s seeking to oppose t h e s a l e o f t h e v e h i c l e p u r s u a n t t o t h e A c t had o n l y a possessory interest titleholders of this case in the vehicle; they were a n d were n o t p u r c h a s i n g t h e v e h i c l e . are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those not the The of facts Ex parte Anderson. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Morgungenko had t h e use and p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e agreement t o purchase the v e h i c l e from pursuant Yuri. to h i s Morgungenko p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h a d p a i d $50,000 t o w a r d the purchase price of the v e h i c l e and that he was making i n s t a l l m e n t p a y m e n t s on t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e $65,000 p u r c h a s e price f o r the v e h i c l e a t the time the a c c i d e n t occurred. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t Morgungenko was an owner o f t h e v e h i c l e a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t and a t t h e time t h e v e h i c l e t r a n s f e r r e d t o Dewayne's s h o p . 13 was 2090230 Shortly amounts a f t e r the accident, he owed Yuri to attempted to t r a n s f e r t i t l e title we refuse because to hold of the the t o Morgungenko. last and vehicle the Yuri That t r a n s f e r o f determining a purchaser of a v e h i c l e i s not the f o r the purposes failure of However, of the Act a formality that the t r i a l merely regarding the of t i t l e . Accordingly, we conclude court erred i n t h a t Morgungenko d i d n o t h a v e s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t proposed vehicle. that of the v e h i c l e certificate sale of However, t h i s even i f t h e t r i a l for purchase paid c o u l d n o t be c o m p l e t e d f o r t e c h n i c a l r e a s o n s . "owner" the Morgungenko court t h a t judgment. the vehicle court may as an abandoned motor a f f i r m a c o r r e c t judgment c i t e s an i n c o r r e c t r e a s o n o r f i n d i n g B o y k i n v. M a g n o l i a Bay, I n c . , 570 So. 2d 639, 642 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; Montgomery v. C o u t u r i e r , 373 So. 2d 625, 627 ( A l a . 1979). court's As i s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , j u d g m e n t as we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l i t pertains t o Morgungenko L a n a Morgungenko ("Lana") on another basis. We note that present evidence i n d i c a t i n g that has failed to she has an i n t e r e s t i n t h e v e h i c l e ; a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l p e r t a i n e d t o 14 2090230 Morgungenko's p u r c h a s e of the v e h i c l e . that part of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment c o n c l u d i n g t h a t Lana did n o t have T h e r e f o r e , we standing to contest the proposed sale affirm of the vehicle. Morgungenko next argues that the t r i a l d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was abandoned. of this court erred i n Under t h e f a c t s case, "an 'abandoned m o t o r v e h i c l e ' s h a l l mean v e h i c l e as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 32-8-2: a motor "(1) W h i c h has b e e n l e f t by t h e owner, or some p e r s o n a c t i n g f o r t h e owner, w i t h an a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r , r e p a i r m a n o r w r e c k e r s e r v i c e f o r r e p a i r o r f o r some o t h e r r e a s o n and has n o t b e e n c a l l e d f o r b y t h e owner o r o t h e r p e r s o n w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e t i m e a g r e e d upon and w i t h i n 60 days a f t e r t h e v e h i c l e i s t u r n e d over t o a d e a l e r , r e p a i r m a n o r w r e c k e r s e r v i c e when no t i m e i s a g r e e d upon, o r w i t h i n 60 d a y s a f t e r the completion of necessary r e p a i r s . " § 3 2 - 1 3 - 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. As p a r t o f h i s argument that the t r i a l court erred i n f i n d i n g t h e v e h i c l e t o be a b a n d o n e d u n d e r t h e A c t , Morgungenko a r g u e s t h a t Dewayne's h a d no p r o p e r b a s i s f o r c h a r g i n g s t o r a g e f e e s d u r i n g t h e t i m e i t was r e p a i r i n g t h e v e h i c l e . m a i n t a i n s t h a t Dewayne's c a n n o t b a s e i t s c l a i m o f He further abandonment on h i s r e f u s a l t o p a y what he c o n t e n d s a r e u n l a w f u l c h a r g e s . 15 2090230 There i s a r g u a b l e not address basis See those contentions. i s s u e s , because upon w h i c h we Boykin court m e r i t t o those may v. M a g n o l i a may affirm a Dewayne's points out, affirm Bay, correct on there i s an the t r i a l I n c . , 570 judgment September However, we do So. court's judgment. 2d a t 642 f o r any 13, alternative reason). 2007, Howard Morgungenko e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t r e s o l v i n g t h e i r r e g a r d i n g Dewayne's b i l l the v e h i c l e . As and dispute fees f o r T h a t a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h i s s e t f o r t h on an i n v o i c e d e t a i l i n g the s p e c i f i c Dewayne's, f o r t h e r e p a i r s and s t o r a g e (this costs of items or s e r v i c e s c h a r g e d by states i n pertinent part: "Storage fee while i n shop f r o m 7/17 to 09/07/2007. S t o r a g e w i l l be a d d e d d a i l y . Storage f e e has b e e n a d j u s t e d t o an a g r e e d p r i c e o f $5,000 i f b i l l i s p a i d b e f o r e d a y ' s e n d o f 09/14/2007. "This b i l l has be[en] r e d u c e d by dropping s t o r a g e f r o m $7,950 t o $5,000. The f u e l t a n k c o r e c h a r g e has been removed. We have b e e n given p e r m i s s i o n t o remove t h e i r t a n k f o r c o r e - - $ 6 8 6.88. The p a r k i n g l o t s t o r a g e has b e e n removed as a c o u r t e s y @ $900. $270 f o r e s t i m a t e f e e was removed, a l s o as a c o u r t e s y . " The t o t a l amount due u n d e r t h e September 13, 2007, a g r e e m e n t was $11,676.28. September Both 13, 2007, Howard and invoice setting agreement. 16 Morgungenko forth signed the the terms of the 2090230 On December Morgungenko, 12, 2007, among o t h e r s , Dewayne's proposed filed sale Yuri and of i t s i n t e n t i o n t o seek the s a l e of the v e h i c l e pursuant t o the A c t . Morgungenkos notified i n the t r i a l of the v e h i c l e . On J a n u a r y 7, 2008, t h e court an objection to the Dewayne's a r g u e d b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t , and r e a s s e r t s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , t h a t Morgungenko had 60 failed to "call f o r " the vehicle within S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, t h e d a t e o f t h e i r a g r e e m e n t . 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975 days See § 32-13- (An a b a n d o n e d m o t o r v e h i c l e i s one "has n o t b e e n c a l l e d f o r b y t h e owner o r o t h e r p e r s o n for t h e owner] a g r e e d upon within and w i t h i n over t o a d e a l e r , agreed a period upon, of 60 days of after 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e v e h i c l e that [acting the time i s turned r e p a i r m a n o r w r e c k e r s e r v i c e when no t i m e i s or within 60 days after the completion of necessary r e p a i r s . " ) . The into record a valid supports a finding that agreement r e g a r d i n g the p a r t i e s entered t h e amount Dewayne's w o u l d a c c e p t f o r t h e s e r v i c e s i t h a d p r o v i d e d and Morgungenko w o u l d pay f o r those s e r v i c e s . I n e x c h a n g e f o r a p r o m i s e o f payment, Dewayne's r e d u c e d o r removed s e v e r a l invoice. Although Morgungenko 17 itemized continued c h a r g e s on i t s to attempt to 2090230 n e g o t i a t e a n o t h e r a g r e e m e n t w i t h Dewayne's a f t e r he s i g n e d t h e September 13, unsuccessful. did 2007, agreement, Further, before those the t r i a l attempts court, were Morgungenko not seek t o s e t a s i d e or i n v a l i d a t e t h a t agreement. The latest date on w h i c h t o s t a r t the running 3 of the p e r i o d f o r d e t e r m i n i n g abandonment u n d e r t h e A c t i s S e p t e m b e r 14, 2007. The S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e r e d u c t i o n o f t h e c o s t o f s t o r a g e f e e s was d e p e n d e n t upon payment b y S e p t e m b e r 14, 2007. is T h e r e f o r e , S e p t e m b e r 14, 2007, a r g u a b l y t h e t i m e "agreed upon" by t h e p a r t i e s . 1 3 - 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. full A s s u m i n g t h a t "no t i m e See § 32- [was] a g r e e d u p o n , " see § 3 2 - 1 3 - 1 ( 1 ) , t h e d a t e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, agreement i s the l a s t date on w h i c h t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of the M o r g u n g e n k o a r g u e s , i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f and on a p p l i c a t i o n for rehearing, t h a t he s i g n e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, agreement under d u r e s s . Morgungenko d i d n o t r a i s e that argument b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n r e s p o n s e t o Dewayne's c o n t e n t i o n , a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t , t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was abandoned, p u r s u a n t t o § 3 2 - 1 3 - 1 , upon t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f 60 d a y s f r o m S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007. A c c o r d i n g l y , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t Morgungenko f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e t h i s argument as a b a s i s f o r seeking the r e v e r s a l of the t r i a l court's judgment. T u c k e r v. N i c h o l s , 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264 ( A l a . 1983) ( t h e " r u l e [ s ] o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w p r o h i b i t [ ] r e v e r s a l o f a j u d g m e n t b e l o w on g r o u n d s n o t r a i s e d and p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t " ) ; W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , 907 So. 2d 447, 450 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 005) (same). 3 18 2090230 abandonment p e r i o d c o u l d b e g i n . I t i s clear that the repairs were c o m p l e t e , o r t h e c e s s a t i o n o f work a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f Morgungenko o c c u r r e d , more t h a n a month b e f o r e Morgungenko a n d Howard e n t e r e d 32-13-1(1). contains i n t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007, a g r e e m e n t . Accordingly, evidence determining that to we must support conclude the t r i a l that See § the record court's judgment t h e v e h i c l e was an a b a n d o n e d m o t o r v e h i c l e under t h e A c t . Morgungenko a l s o concluding that he asserts that the t r i a l lacked standing to court erred i n object to the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f Dewayne's c h a r g e s f o r s t o r a g e . have standing, one must interest'" i n the property have a "'real, v. C i t i z e n s Caring 2004)(quoting tangible a t i s s u e and t h e i n j u r y o f must be t o a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t . In order t o legal complained Town o f C e d a r B l u f f f o r C h i l d r e n , 904 So. 2d 1253, 1256 ( A l a . Duremus v . B u s i n e s s C o u n c i l o f Alabama Workers' Comp. S e l f - I n s u r e r s Fund, 686 So. 2d 252, 253 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . I t i s c l e a r t h a t , as t h e owner o f t h e v e h i c l e , Morgungenko h a d standing t o dispute the reasonableness of the storage In f a c t , the charges. Morgungenko d i d s o , a n d he u l t i m a t e l y e n t e r e d September 13, 2007, agreement 19 with Dewayne's into that 2090230 provided, among o t h e r t h i n g s , f o r t h e r e d u c t i o n of those storage judgment charges. finding the failure September 2007, to to be comply agreement. entered into the dispute with S e p t e m b e r 13, abandoned with Thus, Dewayne's a b o u t t h e he w a i v e d any amount have a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l vehicle Morgungenko's 13, We of the the court's based terms because of the Morgungenko 2007, a g r e e m e n t s e t t l i n g amount o f t h e on storage his fees, f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n to the reasonableness of those fees. Morgungenko a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e A c t b e c a u s e , he says, private property. i t c o n s t i t u t e s an impermissible constitutional impermissible has claim that the t a k i n g of p r o p e r t y . Act constitutes Accordingly, f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 28, Plastics, Inc., APPLICATION FOR 10, 2010, A l a . R. App. 5 So. 3d 1289, 1291 an Morgungenko P., and, for H e n d r i c k s v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). REHEARING OVERRULED; OPINION OF SEPTEMBER WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Pittman, of court erred i n denying t h a t r e a s o n , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e a r g u m e n t . KW taking However, Morgungenko c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of h i s argument t h a t the t r i a l his is unconstitutional B r y a n , Thomas, and 20 Moore, J J . , c o n c u r .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.