SANTA ANA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – A former star on “Storage Wars” has lost his lawsuit against Public Storage after a $12,000 sale of a unit’s contents was voided.
California’s Fourth Appellate District ruled May 28 that a sales agreement between Dave Hester and Public Storage included a clause that let the company void the sale for any reason and that Hester did not sign it under duress.
Hester was the star of “Storage Wars” on A&E until he was fired in 2012. He made appearances on the show following a wrongful termination lawsuit.
“Nothing in the record shows defendant did anything akin to a wrongful act. All participants must agree to the null and void clauses to participate in defendant’s lien sales,” Justice Eileen Moore wrote.
“The clauses are not unlawful under any of the statutes cited by plaintiff. And there is no evidence that defendant created this requirement for any coercive purpose or in bad faith or is exercising these clauses in such a manner.
“Instead, the record suggests the null and void clauses serve a practical business function. They allow defendant to avoid mistakenly selling its occupants’ possessions.”
Hester purchased the contents of a storage unit in Fountain Valley for $11,800, but Public Storage realized soon after the sale that the renter was up to date on his bill and that he was incorrectly marked as delinquent in the company’s computer system.
So Public Storage exercised the clause in its agreement with Hester that let it void the sale, in particular if “the District Manager verifies that the tenant has paid the outstanding balance in full while the auction was taking place.”
The renter had actually paid his balance weeks before the sale. Hester was reimbursed but in a lawsuit alleged breach of contract and three other claims. The trial court dismissed three of the claims, and the sides settled Hester’s allegation of auctioneer misconduct.
Hester claimed the null and void clause in the sales agreement was improper because it was precluded by various statutes and that he agreed to it under duress.
“Refusal to accept the clauses would effectively bar him from participating in defendant’s lien sales, which, he asserts, would cause him to lose 25 percent of his income,” Justice Moore wrote.
“He contends there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the threat of this loss constitutes economic duress. We find no triable issue of fact exists.”