Can you sue for something you don't own?

California -
In addition to the dozen or so other items that my tenant left behind after vacating my property at the end of January was an electric organ left in the garage. There was no note indicating that they wanted this item saved, nor did I receive a telephone call from them about the organ.
I contacted the tenant and told them that the house was being listed for sale and I needed the organ removed from the property. The tenant was in possession of my house keys for an extra week which gave them plenty of opportunities to remove the organ, or have it removed. At the end of the week, I had the organ hauled away, as I had informed them I would do.
My question is, am I responsible for the organ after my tenant has moved out and did not take any steps to retrieve the organ in a reasonable amount of time? I do not feel it is my obligation to store the organ for an indefinite period of time once the tenant has moved out.
Also, can the tenant sue me for the value of the organ when he was merely holding it for a friend? He can't recoup funds on something he never owned, can he?
Thank you!

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

This was a gratuitous bailment, so I don't think he can sue. His friend can sue him for "losing" his property.

Also, read this:


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1980-1991

Thanks for your reply, lawrat.
One more question, please....
I checked the link you sent and it's dated 1980-1991. Does this information still apply? I wouldn't ask if it were just a couple of years, but we're talking 10 years ago here...
Is the info. still valid? Do you know where I could find a more recent version, if, in fact, this is not still valid?
Ok, so that was more than one more question. <g>
Thanks for whatever info you can supply.

LLJ

lljnapa said:

Thanks for your reply, lawrat.
One more question, please....
I checked the link you sent and it's dated 1980-1991. Does this information still apply? I wouldn't ask if it were just a couple of years, but we're talking 10 years ago here...
Is the info. still valid? Do you know where I could find a more recent version, if, in fact, this is not still valid?
Ok, so that was more than one more question. <g>
Thanks for whatever info you can supply.

LLJ

Click to expand...

My response:

I wanted to reply to this because it was kinda funny. Not that our writer knew what he / she was saying was funny though. Only those in the "know" would realize the question was worth a chuckle.

You see, those aren't "years" - - the 1980-1991 are the California Civil Code "Section Numbers"; e.g., Section 1980, or Section 1981, or Section 1982, etc.

Those Section numbers are the current laws for the year 2001; so, dear writer, the laws as you have read them are current. It's only coincidental that the numbers "look" like "year" designations rather that statutory "section" numbers.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

Ahhh.. ok.
Thanks for the clarification! Much appreciated!

My response:

Any time, Amigo.

IAAL

IAM -
May I ask one more question related to this case?

So, let's assume that I take time off from work and travel the 45 minutes to the adjacent town for the small claims court hearing and am successful and win the case.
Aside from *not* having to dish out the $3,500 that I'm being sued for, am I due any funds for my lost wages and travel expenses? Does this come under the heading of "court costs"?
Thanks!

lljnapa said:

IAM -
May I ask one more question related to this case?

So, let's assume that I take time off from work and travel the 45 minutes to the adjacent town for the small claims court hearing and am successful and win the case.
Aside from *not* having to dish out the $3,500 that I'm being sued for, am I due any funds for my lost wages and travel expenses? Does this come under the heading of "court costs"?
Thanks!

Click to expand...

My response:

Unfortunately, no.

You see, in order to exercise one's rights to redress, or to defend against an action, the law takes into account that people will ordinarily lose time from work, suffer travel expenses, and other costs just to "get to the courthouse". As such, the law doesn't allow reimbursement when someone wishes to exercise or defend their rights. In laymen's terms, the law considers those losses as a part of "doing business" with the courts, and are not considered "court costs".

There are exceptions to every rule, however. For example, there are certain Statutes or Case Law (depending on the Cause of Action involved) that allow for such reimbursement as part of a person's overall damages.

But, in your case, you don't come under any of those Statutes.

Good luck to you, and knock 'em dead.

IAAL