Preview
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF ROSEAU NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 68-CV-21-488
Brandon J. Hartnell,
Plaintiff,
vs. FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
Tyler J. Millsop, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
Defendant.
The above matter came before the court for trial on January 14, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. at the
Roseau County Courthouse. Parties appeared via the courts zoom meeting room, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff, Brandon Hartnell, was present with his attorney Alan fish. Tyler
Millsop, Defendant, was present and was not represented.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff sold to Defendant a 2015 Chevrolet diesel pickup on March 28, 2019, for
Fifty Thousand and four hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty cents ($50, 446.20). The motor
vehicle at the time had an odometer reading of Ninety-four thousand and three hundred forty-five
(94,345) miles and the parties reduced the agreement to writing pursuant to a bill of sale entered
as exhibit two (2) at trial.
Defendant immediately began making payment to Ally Financial in the amount of Nine
hundred and eighty-eight ($988.00) dollars per month as he was unable to pay the full purchase
price at the time and continued to make periodic payments for approximately one year ultimately
reducing the principal balance, after interest on the indebtedness, to Forty-one thousand and eight
hundred sixty-five ($41,865) dollars when he stopped making payments.
During the time of ownership, it was undisputed that Defendant took possession of the
vehicle, insured the vehicle, and drove the vehicle in the State of North Dakota where he lived
accumulating an additional Forty-two thousand (42,000) miles.
During his possession and ownership, the Defendant removed the DEF pollution control
system and further modified the vehicle adding electronic computer modifications to increase the
horsepower and fuel efficiency. Plaintiff testified both items are not recommended by the factory
as they create additional wear and tear on the vehicle and the additional horsepower subjects the
vehicle to potential motor failure. Plaintiff provided evidence of Defendant posting videos on
social media brake torquing the vehicle, spinning the tires while applying the brakes, and otherwise
using the vehicle in a manner to which it was not intended, showing off to social media viewers
the increased horsepower, black smoke abilities and tire spinning abilities.
Ultimately, the motor failed and needed to be replaced. Plaintiff alleges this was due to
modifications made by Defendant. Defendant did not respond as to why the engine failed. The
Defendant further made further modification adding lights, modifying the tire size, chopping metal
out of the fender wells to accommodate the larger tires and wheels. The Defendant further broke
the window, replaced the mirrors with cheaper models, and rendered the door inoperable.
Defendant ultimately abandoned the vehicle in Dickinson, North Dakota demanding
Plaintiff retrieve the vehicle which Plaintiff did. Plaintiff testified as ordinarily hourly pay at his
work was twenty ($20.00) dollars per hour and he spent twenty-two (22) hours driving around one
thousand (1,000) miles to retrieve the vehicle with trailer from Dickinson, North Dakota and
approximately four (4) hours loading it. Plaintiff further testified he incurred more than six hundred
($600.00) dollars in fuel costs.
When Defendant returned the vehicle to Minnesota, a Chevrolet dealership, Lake County
Chevrolet in Warroad, Minnesota inspected the vehicle and determined damages to the motor
amounted to Twenty-two thousand and five hundred sixty-one dollars and fifty cents ($22,561.50).
Plaintiff ultimately sold the salvaged inoperable vehicle for Twenty- two thousand ($22,000.00)
dollars to mitigate his damages, leaving a balance due from the original purchase Nineteen
thousand and eight hundred sixty-five ($19,865.00) dollars which he now seeks to recover.
Defendant, for his part, testified that he agreed he purchased the vehicle, he agreed he placed
insurance on the vehicle, agreed he placed tabs on the vehicle, agreed he modified the vehicle
removing the DEF system, agreed he modified the vehicle to increase the horsepower and
ultimately blew the vehicle motor up while in his possession and control after the purchase and
driving it over Forty-two thousand (42,000) miles. Defendant claimed he should not be liable as
this sale was contingent upon him receiving financing on the vehicle and he could not do so. No
evidence to support this testimony was produced or received by the Court. The Defendant further
received the use or benefit of the vehicle for over one year and due to his modifications and
negligent operation caused damages to the vehicle.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court finds that the parties entered into a valid agreement wherein Defendant purchased
the motor vehicle from the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Defendant breached this agreement
by failure to pay for the vehicle and Plaintiff received a voluntary surrender of the vehicle by the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff mitigated his damages by first obtaining an estimate for the damages of the
vehicle and then selling the vehicle for Twenty-two thousand ($22,000.00) dollars, an amount of
money which benefited the Defendant being more than the book value of the vehicle or remaining
debt on the vehicle, less the repairs.
The Court finds the Defendant owes the Plaintiff the sum of Nineteen thousand eight
hundred sixty-five ($19,865.00) dollars for the unpaid balance of the vehicle after deduction for
payments and sale of the vehicle.
The Court finds the Plaintiff has incurred reasonable costs of Five hundred eighty-five
($585.00) dollars for mileage, which is calculated at (1000 X .585) for retrieving the vehicle from
Dickinson, North Dakota and in the retrieving and reselling the vehicle.
NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff is entitled to judgement against Defendant for Twenty
thousand and four hundred and fifty dollars ($20,450.00) plus his costs and disbursements.
ORDER
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
DATED: February 23, 2022 BY THE COURT:
Dixon, Donna
2022.02.23
14:50:27
_______________________________________
Judge of District Court-06'00'
Donna K. Dixon
JUDGMENT
Dated:___________________
February 23, 2022 I certify that the above Order constitutes the
Order and Judgment of the Court.
Court Administrator
By: ________________________________
Preview
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF ROSEAU NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. 68-CV-21-488 Brandon J. Hartnell, Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND Tyler J. Millsop, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Defendant. The above matter came before the court for trial on January 14, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. at the Roseau County Courthouse. Parties appeared via the courts zoom meeting room, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff, Brandon Hartnell, was present with his attorney Alan fish. Tyler Millsop, Defendant, was present and was not represented. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff sold to Defendant a 2015 Chevrolet diesel pickup on March 28, 2019, for Fifty Thousand and four hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty cents ($50, 446.20). The motor vehicle at the time had an odometer reading of Ninety-four thousand and three hundred forty-five (94,345) miles and the parties reduced the agreement to writing pursuant to a bill of sale entered as exhibit two (2) at trial. Defendant immediately began making payment to Ally Financial in the amount of Nine hundred and eighty-eight ($988.00) dollars per month as he was unable to pay the full purchase price at the time and continued to make periodic payments for approximately one year ultimately reducing the principal balance, after interest on the indebtedness, to Forty-one thousand and eight hundred sixty-five ($41,865) dollars when he stopped making payments. During the time of ownership, it was undisputed that Defendant took possession of the vehicle, insured the vehicle, and drove the vehicle in the State of North Dakota where he lived accumulating an additional Forty-two thousand (42,000) miles. During his possession and ownership, the Defendant removed the DEF pollution control system and further modified the vehicle adding electronic computer modifications to increase the horsepower and fuel efficiency. Plaintiff testified both items are not recommended by the factory as they create additional wear and tear on the vehicle and the additional horsepower subjects the vehicle to potential motor failure. Plaintiff provided evidence of Defendant posting videos on social media brake torquing the vehicle, spinning the tires while applying the brakes, and otherwise using the vehicle in a manner to which it was not intended, showing off to social media viewers the increased horsepower, black smoke abilities and tire spinning abilities. Ultimately, the motor failed and needed to be replaced. Plaintiff alleges this was due to modifications made by Defendant. Defendant did not respond as to why the engine failed. The Defendant further made further modification adding lights, modifying the tire size, chopping metal out of the fender wells to accommodate the larger tires and wheels. The Defendant further broke the window, replaced the mirrors with cheaper models, and rendered the door inoperable. Defendant ultimately abandoned the vehicle in Dickinson, North Dakota demanding Plaintiff retrieve the vehicle which Plaintiff did. Plaintiff testified as ordinarily hourly pay at his work was twenty ($20.00) dollars per hour and he spent twenty-two (22) hours driving around one thousand (1,000) miles to retrieve the vehicle with trailer from Dickinson, North Dakota and approximately four (4) hours loading it. Plaintiff further testified he incurred more than six hundred ($600.00) dollars in fuel costs. When Defendant returned the vehicle to Minnesota, a Chevrolet dealership, Lake County Chevrolet in Warroad, Minnesota inspected the vehicle and determined damages to the motor amounted to Twenty-two thousand and five hundred sixty-one dollars and fifty cents ($22,561.50). Plaintiff ultimately sold the salvaged inoperable vehicle for Twenty- two thousand ($22,000.00) dollars to mitigate his damages, leaving a balance due from the original purchase Nineteen thousand and eight hundred sixty-five ($19,865.00) dollars which he now seeks to recover. Defendant, for his part, testified that he agreed he purchased the vehicle, he agreed he placed insurance on the vehicle, agreed he placed tabs on the vehicle, agreed he modified the vehicle removing the DEF system, agreed he modified the vehicle to increase the horsepower and ultimately blew the vehicle motor up while in his possession and control after the purchase and driving it over Forty-two thousand (42,000) miles. Defendant claimed he should not be liable as this sale was contingent upon him receiving financing on the vehicle and he could not do so. No evidence to support this testimony was produced or received by the Court. The Defendant further received the use or benefit of the vehicle for over one year and due to his modifications and negligent operation caused damages to the vehicle. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court finds that the parties entered into a valid agreement wherein Defendant purchased the motor vehicle from the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Defendant breached this agreement by failure to pay for the vehicle and Plaintiff received a voluntary surrender of the vehicle by the Defendant. The Plaintiff mitigated his damages by first obtaining an estimate for the damages of the vehicle and then selling the vehicle for Twenty-two thousand ($22,000.00) dollars, an amount of money which benefited the Defendant being more than the book value of the vehicle or remaining debt on the vehicle, less the repairs. The Court finds the Defendant owes the Plaintiff the sum of Nineteen thousand eight hundred sixty-five ($19,865.00) dollars for the unpaid balance of the vehicle after deduction for payments and sale of the vehicle. The Court finds the Plaintiff has incurred reasonable costs of Five hundred eighty-five ($585.00) dollars for mileage, which is calculated at (1000 X .585) for retrieving the vehicle from Dickinson, North Dakota and in the retrieving and reselling the vehicle. NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff is entitled to judgement against Defendant for Twenty thousand and four hundred and fifty dollars ($20,450.00) plus his costs and disbursements. ORDER LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY DATED: February 23, 2022 BY THE COURT: Dixon, Donna 2022.02.23 14:50:27 _______________________________________ Judge of District Court-06'00' Donna K. Dixon JUDGMENT Dated:___________________ February 23, 2022 I certify that the above Order constitutes the Order and Judgment of the Court. Court Administrator By: ________________________________