§ 62.045.Wrongful Sequestration of Consumer Goods

A statutory minimum for the consumer case, and a defence that must be earned.

Where a writ that sought to sequester consumer goods is dissolved, the defendant or party in possession is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and to damages equal to the greater of $100, the finance charge contracted for, or actual damages.

The three-way measure is the notable feature. A floor of $100, a figure drawn from the transaction itself, and actual loss — whichever is largest.

The finance charge measure is the interesting one. It ties the recovery to what the creditor charged for the credit, which scales with the size of the transaction without requiring proof of loss.

The floor exists because consumer damages are usually small and hard to prove. A car taken for two weeks causes real disruption and little quantifiable loss, and without a minimum the remedy would be theoretical.

"Defendant or party in possession" reaches beyond the named defendant to whoever held the goods — a family member, a co-user — who bore the deprivation.

Subsection (b) supplies a defence, and it is narrow. Damages may not be awarded for a failure to prove the specific facts alleged if the failure is the result of a bona fide error.

The defence must be earned: the plaintiff must prove the use of reasonable procedures to avoid the error.

That is the familiar structure from consumer protection statutes, and it rewards a creditor with systems while leaving one without them exposed.

"Consumer goods" takes its meaning from the Business & Commerce Code — goods used or bought primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.