Common-law conversion; Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbian Distrib Servs, Inc; Statutory conversion; MCL 600.2919a; “Actual damages”; Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Hague; Directed verdict & judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Waiver; Nexteer Auto Corp v Mando Am Corp; Implied consent; MCR 2.118(C)(1); Case evaluation sanctions; MCR 2.403(O); Effect of a new rule; Reitmeyer v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendants-former employee’s and his photography company’s (Q11) motions for directed verdict and JNOV regarding plaintiff-cable TV company’s (TWN) conversion action. It also held that Q11 could be held liable here, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the new amendment to MCR 2.403(O) should not apply to this case. Plaintiff sued defendants for common-law and statutory conversion for deleting preferences on and damaging a “switcher,” deleting videos and files from his office computer, and taking various items, including two external hard drives he claimed were personal property. The jury awarded plaintiff $28,000 and the trial court entered a postjudgment order awarding plaintiff case evaluation sanctions. On appeal, the court rejected defendants’ argument that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a directed verdict, and their subsequent motion for JNOV, on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to identify the converted property and that the damages awarded were based on speculation. “Contrary to defendants’ assertions in their briefing and at oral argument, there was evidence of the value of converted property introduced into the record.” In addition, to the extent they argued “in the alternative, without citing any relevant legal authority in support, that the damages award should be reduced to $5,000 because that was the amount of TWN’s insurance deductible, this argument” lacked merit. The court also rejected defendants’ claim that Q11 could not be liable for statutory conversion as it was no longer a defendant in the case by the time the trial started. Defendants “expressly approved the jury instructions and verdict form instructing the jury to determine whether Q11 . . . was liable for statutory conversion and, by extension, expressly approved including Q11” as a defendant against whom such a claim was alleged. Finally, the court rejected defendants’ contention the trial court erred by awarding plaintiff case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O) after that rule was amended to remove the sanctions provisions. “Because the parties acted in reliance under the old rule in proceeding to trial, and the decision to proceed to trial carried consequences and rights that were eliminated by the new rule, there was a valid reason to apply the pre-amendment version of MCR 2.403(O) to avoid an injustice.” Affirmed.