Richard Orin Berge - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
               Tilo’s European Autohaus, that Defendant would transfer                
               title to the Vehicle to Plaintiff.                                     
               At the time Defendant made this agreement with Plaintiff,              
               Defendant intended [sic] keep the title to the Vehicle in              
               the name of Defendant and not transfer title to the Vehicle            
               to Plaintiff as was required per the terms of the agreement            
               between Plaintiff and Defendant.  Defendant has previously             
               represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff is the owner of the            
               Vehicle, yet Defendant continues to refuse to execute any              
               necessary documents to transfer title to the Vehicle to                
               Plaintiff.  Defendant never intended to transfer the Vehicle           
               to Plaintiff per Defendant’s earlier representations,                  
               instead Defendant has subsequently represented that                    
               Defendant always intended to demand the return of the                  
               Plaintiff’s Vehicle upon payment in full of the liability              
               for the Vehicle.                                                       
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
               As a result of Defendant’s fraudulent statements and acts              
               and failure to transfer title per the agreement, plaintiff             
               has suffered damages in the form of monies expended for the            
               purchase, maintenance, and repair of the Vehicle which                 
               Defendant refuses to transfer to the Plaintiff.                        
                         Third Cause of Action - Conversion                           
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
               On June 30, 1998, Defendant wrongfully took possession of              
               said Vehicle and numerous items of Plaintiff’s personal                
               property contained inside said Vehicle, against Plaintiff’s            
               wishes and despite Plaintiff’s objections.  Defendant                  
               maintained exclusive possession and control of said vehicle            
               and items of personal property, and refused to return same             
               to Plaintiff until July 11, 1999.                                      
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
               Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff to suffer damages,           
               including lost work time, transportation costs, and other              
               damages as a result of Defendant’s deprivation of                      
               Plaintiff’s ownership interest in said vehicle.                        
               Additionally, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3336           
               Plaintiff is presumptively entitled to damages for the value           
               of the converted property in the amount of $40,000.                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011