In an unpublished opinion released March 2, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict of $267,000 in a lockout and conversion case (with attorney fees, the judgment total was $299,256, with no statutory interest).  The jury awarded $141,500 on the lockout claim and $89,000 on the conversion claim, which trebled became $267,000.  Final damages were allowed under only one theory.  The case is Christie v. Fick, Ct of App No. 285924.  The Christies lived in a cabin in Grayling they rented from Fick.  The jury found that Fick locked them out and moved their belongings into storage where they were damaged.  Fick claimed the Christies had abandoned the cabin and missed several opportunities to retrieve their belongings.

The court of appeals rejected each of the several issues Fick raised on appeal.  Fick claimed that the trial court wrongly instructed the jury about exemplary damages, saying that for a statutorily based cause of action, exemplary damages are allowed only if the statute specifically allows them. (The statutes involved are MCL 600.2918 and 600.2919a.)  The appeals court accepted this proposition, but said that case law recognizes a distinction between exemplary damages and recovery for mental anguish that is a component of actual damages, as was awarded in the case.

The next issue concerned mitigation of damages, which Fick said the trial court also wrongly instructed the jury about.  Relying on Gum v. Fitzgerald, 80 Mich App 234 (1977), the appeals court said “once there has been a refusal of a right to possession, no further demand for the property is necessary in order for the plaintiff to recover.“ 

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20100302_C285924_43_285924.OPN.PDF