USA Foreclosure Wiki

Smith v. Lewis Auto Body (2011)

3 min read

Smith v. Lewis Auto Body (2011)

Citation: 2011 WY 109, 255 P.3d 935 · Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming, No. S-10-0267 · Decided: July 13, 2011 · Opinion: Burke, J.

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the Pacific Reporter (static.case.law, P.3d volume 255), an unofficial host.

Facts

Smith’s damaged 2006 Corvette went to Lewis Auto Body for repair. His insurer, State Farm, paid USD 6,500 for parts, declared the car a total loss on February 20, 2007, and on April 6, 2007 demanded its release. Lewis instead invoiced USD 30,816.32, asserted a lien, published a notice of lien sale, filed an affidavit with the county clerk for a title, and took title by a private sale. Smith sued in replevin and conversion. The district court granted Smith summary judgment, finding that Lewis did not file a valid lien and did not give proper notice of the sale, vacated the lien sale and voided Lewis’s title. Lewis re-asserted a lien and sued for money. After a bench trial the court awarded Lewis storage at USD 60 per day through November 1, 2007, a week after State Farm posted a bond.

Holding

Reversed on storage. Even assuming a valid lien, a lienholder who refuses an owner’s demand for release “was not entitled to storage fees after a demand for release of the vehicle was made because, during that period, Lewis was storing the vehicle for its own benefit.” The holder may retain possession under W.S. 29-7-102(a) until paid, but may not also accumulate storage charges.

Reasoning

  • The lien statutes grant a right of retention but do not address storage after demand; the question was one of first impression.
  • The court followed Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Styck’s Body Shop (Ill. App. 2009), GMAC v. D.C. Wrecker Service (W. Va.) and Owens v. Pyeatt (Cal. App. 1967): after demand, the bailee holds the property for its own benefit and bears the cost of insisting on the lien.
  • A repairer is not forced to keep the vehicle: it can release it and sue, or file a lien statement and keep the lien without possession (W.S. 29-7-101 to 29-7-106).

Practical impact

  • Buyers at repair or tow lien sales: the lien amount, and therefore any sale, can be overstated by post-demand storage; a sale without a valid lien or proper notice was vacated and the lienor’s title voided at the trial level in this case.
  • Owners and insurers: a written demand for release cuts off further storage charges.
  • Shops: storage accrues only until demand; the 180-day storage cap now in W.S. 29-7-102(e)(ii) is a separate limit for vehicles.

Good-law status

Still good law as of 2026-10-17. McTiernan v. Jellis, 2013 WY 151, limited the opinion’s remark that a lienholder may assert a lien “regardless of whether it had possession” to retention after a lien statement is filed; initial possession is required.

Rechecked 2026-10-18 against the full CAP opinion: McTiernan v. Jellis (2013) is the only later decision located that discusses its lien holding (narrowing it as described above); § 29-7-102 is unchanged in the 2026 compiled title. Not a commercial citator check.

Applies in →

wyoming · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · motor-vehicles · mctiernan-v-jellis-2013

Graph View

Backlinks