Gianakis v. Koss d/b/a Accu-Body.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY CHARLES GIANAKIS and JOANNA GIANAKIS, Plaintiff, v. JERRY KOSS d/b/a ACCU-BODY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 02C-12-021 HLA Date Submitted: January 16, 2003 Date Decided: January 21, 2003 DECISION AFTER REPLEVIN HEARING On this 21st day of January 2003, upon consideration of the Complaint filed and the Reple vin Hear ing held Jan uary 16, 2003 , it appears to th e Court tha t: (1) Charles Gianakis and Joanna Gianakis ( Plaintiffs ) filed a Complaint for Reple vin aga inst Jerry K oss d/b /a/ Acc u-Bod y ( Def endan t ) on D ecemb er 3, 200 2. A Replevin Hearing was held on January 16. 2003. Mr. Jerry Koss appeared pro se at this hearing . Mr. A ndrew G. Ah ern, III, ap peared on beh alf of th e Plainti ffs. Gianakis v. Koss C.A. No. 02C-12-021 HLA January 21, 2003 Page 2 (2) Plaintiffs complaint arose out of a dispute regarding a storage fee for Plaintiffs automobile in Defendant s automobile repair shop. On or about June 27, 2002 Plaintiffs 1996 Lexus LS 400 ( Lexus ) was involved in a collision and received damage to the body of the vehicle. On or about July 25, 2002, Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed that Defe ndant w ould repair th e vehicle fo r the sum o f $4,300.0 0. It is in dispute a s to whether the car was properly repaired and as to the date Plaintiffs stated they would pick up the vehicle. It is not disputed that when Plaintiffs went to retrieve the Lexus from the Defendant s Body Shop, Plaintiffs were told that in addition to the agreed upon sum of $4,300.00, a storage fee of $1,020.00 was also owed. Plaintiffs refused to pay the storage fee. As a result, Defendant has refused to return the vehicle to Plaintiffs despite demand and agreement to pay the $4,300.00 repair fee. Plaintiffs now seek replevin of said motor vehicle. (3) Replevin is a form of action for the recovery of the possession of personal prop erty w hich has b een t aken or w ithheld f rom the o wne r unlawf ully. 1 In order to o btain relief, Plaintiffs must establish that they have a right to the immediate and exclusive 1 In the Matter of: Michael J. Richardson, 2000 WL 1162291 (Del. Super.)(citing Harlan v. Hollingsworth Corporation v. McBride, et al., 69 A.2d 9 (Del. Supr. 1949); Bennett v. Brittingham, 3 W.W. Harr. 519, 33 Del. 519; McClemy v. Brown 6 Boyce 253, 99A. 48; 2 Woolley s Delaware Practice, §§ 1526, 1528, 1541, 1555). Gianakis v. Koss C.A. No. 02C-12-021 HLA January 21, 2003 Page 3 poss essio n of the it em in controversy. 2 If Plaintiffs d o not have the right to the immedia te possession of the item, Plaintiffs cannot maintain replevin.3 (5) It appears to the Court that Plaintiffs have an immediate and exclusive possessory inte rest in the Le xus. Def endant ha s no posse ssory interest in the vehicle, only in the alleged ly owed stora ge fee. Th ere is no disp ute betwe en the parties as to ownership of the motor vehicle. (6) Thus, in light of these facts, the Plaintiffs writ of replevin is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________________ ALFORD , J. Original: Prothonotary s Office - Civil Div. 2 In the Matter of: Michael J. Richardson, 2000 WL 1162291 (Del. Super.)(citing 2 Woolley, § 1541). 3 In the Matter of: Michael J. Richardson, 2000 WL 1162291 (Del. Super.)(citing 2 Woolley, § 1524).
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.
