What is Conversion?
In a recent post here, we talked about an action in conversion.
I received an inquiry as to what this meant.
In general terms, conversion is an interference with someone else’s ownership of personal property. It is a general intent tort, or a civil action. (Although there can be criminal conversion)
Conversion deprives the rightful owner of the possession and use of his /her property.
The defendant's (the one who wrongfully is in possession of the property) reasons for the act generally cannot be used as an excuse. It is irrelevant that the defendant made a mistake in possessing the property.
The standard remedy for conversion is a money judgment for damages in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property or an immediate return of the property. Punitive damages (if a defendant commits an act that is malicious or intentional, possible excess money damages may be awarded to punish the defendant), are also possible because conversion is an intentional tort.
If you sneak into the garage next door and take your neighbor's golf clubs and keep them for yourself, he/she may bring an action against you for conversion.
Pet Custody Dispute Heads to Texas Court
There are probably more pets in this country than there are children.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that pet custody cases are on the rise.
We have discussed many times, such as here and here that although pet owners consider their animals a part of the family, most courts still consider them only to be personal property.
Here is another reported case involving a“custody “dispute over a pet
The Southeast Texas Record recently reported on a custody story. According to reporter, David Yates, the facts are as follows:
" A run-of-the-mill family feud has spilled into the civil realm over custody of a pet.
Given power of attorney by his father, a disgruntled brother has filed suit against his sister. The issue: the sister allegedly made off with the father's dog, Little Vicky.
Seeking punitive and mental anguish damages, J.W. Rogers sued his dog-nabbing sister, Lauren Jean Freedman, on June 9.
On Father's Day six years ago, J.W. Rogers and his wife Debbie gave his father Victor Rogers a dog named "Little Vicky," according to the suit.
"Little Vicky became a loyal and trusted companion and informal therapy dog to Victor Rogers," the suit states. "Little Vicky routinely slept next to Victor Rogers or bedside. Little Vicky also became somewhat of a watch dog for the household at night."
In his suit, J.W. goes on to say Victor is an animal lover and Little Vicky was a source of happiness for him until his sister robbed her father's happiness when she came to visit him at his Beaumont home during the 2008 Passover holiday.
"When Defendant Freedman returned to California, she took Victor Rogers' dog with her without permission or approval," the suit says.
"In fact, perhaps knowing she was acting inappropriately, she simply left a voicemail for J.W. Rogers telling him she was taking Little Vicky. Little Vicky is greatly missed by Victor Rogers. J.W. Rogers has made numerous attempts to have the dog returned to his father, all to no avail."
J.W. says he is entitled to recover conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, actual damages and punitive damages from his sister for her wrongful behavior.
He is demanding a jury trial..."
It will be interesting to follow this case and the decision that is rendered in this fact situation.
It may be another small step in the evolving law of pets as personal property.
