Reference no: EM132185204

Use this fact pattern for problems . Aida rented a small house in state of portland , oregon from a married couple, Jane and Stone, who lived in Vancouver, Washington. Last summer, Jane and Aida got in an argument over a trivial matter. The next day, Jane verbally told Aida to “get out” of the house immediately so her daughter’s family could move in. A few days later, Jane and Stone went to the rental house and found Aida still living there. They proceeded to throw Aida’s belongings out of the house. They also called Haul-Away, a moving company from Vancouver, to come and haul away all of Aida’s personal property. Haul-Away did as instructed despite Aida’s protest. Aida was eventually locked out of the house and became homeless for a few days until her parents, who flew in from Maine, helped her out. She and her parents drove to Haul-Away office and demanded the return of her belongings. Haul-Away stated it had no idea what they were talking about.

--Motion for Summary Judgment. In Aida’s case above, assume that Haul-Away was properly served and Aida was allowed to proceed with the lawsuit against Haul-way for allegedly committing the tort of conversion, which is an intentional act deprives the owner of personal property without the owner’s consent. Despite evidence indicating that Aida told the moving company numerous time not to touch her belongings, the trial court granted Haul-Away’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that Aida failed to show that Haul-Away intentionally deprived her of her belongings. Haul-Away claimed they thought the items belonged to the landlord and they had the landlord’s permission to remove the items, and because they didn’t know the item belonged to Aida, they could not have intentionally deprive her of her belongings. Aida appealed. Was the trial court correct in its decision to grant Haul-Away’s motion for summary judgment?