Conversion of trees; MCL 600.2919; Requirement that damages be proved with reasonable certainty; Measure of damages; Schankin v Buskirk; Szymanski v Brown; Thiele v Detroit Edison Co

The court held that the trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs damages for only one tree in this conversion case because they failed to prove additional damages with reasonable certainty as to others. It also did not err in ruling that the replacement value of the tree was the appropriate measure of damages. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiffs $13,501.98 in damages for a hickory tree cut down by defendant-Chad Hart and denying defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal. Plaintiffs sold defendant-Hart Brothers a parcel of land adjoining their property. “Chad, who worked for Hart Brothers, cleared an entire row of trees that stood on the border of the” properties, believing they were on Hart Brothers' property. Plaintiffs contended on appeal that the trial court did not “‘adequately compensate’ them ‘for their loss’” because trees in addition to the hickory tree were cut down. The trial court determined “that defendants had cut down one ‘big,’ ‘old hickory tree’ that belonged to plaintiffs and that defendants had also cut down ‘other trees’ that were located on plaintiffs’ property and/or the property line.” But it found that plaintiffs “failed to present evidence as to the number and type of ‘other trees’ that were cut down.” Apart from the testimony by one plaintiff about the hickory tree, there was no other evidence to support that “plaintiffs had an ownership interest in any of the other trees that were removed.” A surveyor (B) that they had hired “was only able to recall that the tree row ‘mostly straddled the line[,] meaning some of the tree row was on one side [of the property line], [and] some of the tree row was [on] the other side[.]’ When [B] was asked if he could ‘identify the number of trees that were on one side of the property line versus the other,’ [B] responded, ‘No.’ Although [B] recalled that there were ‘older, mature trees’ in the tree line, he was unable to recall where” they were, and he agreed that tree rows may “contain ‘all types of species of trees[.]’” As to defendants’ cross-appeal, the court found that like those “in Schankin, Szymanski, and Thiele, plaintiffs in this case presented evidence that the trees had a unique or aesthetic value. Because the trial court clearly found” their testimony credible, it did not err in its determination as to the measure of damages.