USA Foreclosure Wiki

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. D.C. Wrecker Service (2007)

4 min read

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. D.C. Wrecker Service (2007)

Citation: 220 W. Va. 425, 647 S.E.2d 861 · Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 33192 · Decided: May 25, 2007 · Opinion: Starcher, J.

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the West Virginia Reports (static.case.law, W. Va. volume 220), an unofficial host.

Facts

Randy Moore’s 2002 GMC pickup, financed through a retail installment contract assigned to GMAC, was disabled in a collision in Mingo County. A tow operator called by an emergency responder refused Moore’s request to tow it under 500 feet to his home, saying it had to go to the operator’s impound lot “for insurance purposes.” About three weeks later the operator told Moore’s family the vehicle would not be released until roughly USD 4,000–5,000 in towing and storage was paid. Moore later defaulted; GMAC asked for the truck and was told USD 5,000 (later USD 3,900). GMAC sued for a declaratory judgment and possession; the truck was released after mediation, having been held 569 days. The circuit court found a valid improver’s lien under § 38-11-3, awarded the tow operator USD 1,500 in compensatory and USD 4,500 in punitive damages, and denied GMAC depreciation damages.

Holding

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for GMAC on the counterclaim and to determine GMAC’s depreciation damages.

  • A § 38-11-3 lien for towing and storage arises only where the owner gave voluntary consent, express or implied; consent obtained by fraud, deceit or other improper or unconscionable means does not support the lien.
  • An improver’s lien “is not created for storage fees generated when an improver has demanded unreasonable fees as a precondition for release of a stored motor vehicle.” With a reasonable rate of USD 10 per day, about USD 210 was due when the owner first sought release; the USD 5,000 demand barred the lien on equitable and unclean-hands grounds.
  • Reaffirming fruehauf-v-huntington-moving-and-storage-1975 and bank-of-white-sulphur-springs-v-patriot-ford-1994, GMAC’s prior perfected security interest had priority, GMAC never consented to storage, and its suit was a bona fide claim of right that could not support punitive damages.

Reasoning

  • The statute allows “the charges agreed upon” or, absent agreement, “just and reasonable charges”; no charge had been agreed.
  • Before default the lender had no right to possession or to consent to storage, so it could not be faulted for delay.
  • The court noted the § 38-11-3 proviso under which a repossessing secured party pays a releasing improver the lesser of cost or USD 1,500, but resolved the case on the absence of a valid lien.

Practical impact

  • Buyers of vehicles from tow or storage yards should confirm the yard’s lien rested on the owner’s consent and reasonable charges; a lien that never arose cannot support any sale.
  • Tow operators acting on a non-consensual tow, or demanding inflated storage before release, have no § 38-11-3 lien for that storage and may owe depreciation damages.
  • Lenders may sue for possession and depreciation without paying an unreasonable demand.
  • Tows ordered by law enforcement fall under different rules (see west-virginia module 12.2 on W. Va. Code § 17-24A-4); the court noted that a duty to impound may exist where law enforcement or other authorities decide it.

Good-law status

Still good law as of 2026-10-17 so far as located; no later CAP West Virginia Reports decision (through 2017) citing it was found.

Applies in →

west-virginia · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · motor-vehicles

Graph View

Backlinks