Legal Conversion of

Intangible rights could not be lost or regained, and the original rule of the common law was that there could be no conversion of those rights. This restriction was widely rejected. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the level of damages for the conversion of a negotiable instrument is normally considered to be its face value. [48] The fact that personal property is attached to the immovable property after it has been converted does not normally preclude the continuation of an action for conversion, although opinions on this subject remain mixed (partly because of the legal confusion between movable and immovable property on the same property). Applications to convert a building, building-related machinery or grain elevator were approved. [71] [72] [73] [74] The separation of ownership and real estate can be transformed. [75] Buildings can be converted. [72] [76] Manure can be converted. [77] [78] There is no simple general rule separating personal property from real property. Conversion is an intentional offence, an offence consisting of “exercising over movable property property incompatible with the beneficial owner`s right of possession”. [1] In England and Wales, this is a tort of strict liability. [2] Its criminal law equivalents include theft or theft and criminal conversion.

In jurisdictions that recognize it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft or theft. This article deals with the Basic Law of Conversion. There are a number of objections to an applicant`s request for conversion. First, an applicant cannot be presumed to be for conversion if he knew about the conversion or consented to it. And the consent of the applicant does not need to be direct verbal consent. Consent may be derived from the actions of the applicant. The most direct and obvious way to commit conversion is to take personal property belonging to someone else without permission. For example, if you take a framed photo of a local restaurant wall or a document from someone`s office, you may be held responsible for the conversion, provided you keep the property for an extended period of time, thereby interfering with the rightful owner`s use and ownership. It doesn`t matter if you intend to post the information, photos, or any other content. Damages are an essential part of any conversion claim, i.e. If a plaintiff has no damages, the plaintiff has no cause.

In a conversion action, damages can be determined by examining the value of the property at the time of conversion plus interest from that date. McKinley v. Flaherty, 390 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. App. 1986). The limitation period for a request for conversion is six years from the date of an illegal act of the applicant`s assets. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subdiv. 1(5). The tortious act of conversion establishes the offender vis-à-vis the owner for the amount of the total value of the movable property plus any special damage resulting from the conversion. This liability does not depend on the owner being liable to the owner for the loss of the movable property.

While the normal measure of damage caused by conversion is only the fair market value of the property at the time of conversion, as well as fair compensation for time and money properly spent on property tracking, emotional distress damages are permissible even in extreme circumstances. Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn., 114 Cal. App. 4th 208 (Cal. App.3d Dist. 2003). See our article on tort liability. The input does not need to be malicious or even well-informed. Thus, a conversion can be made without being aware of the owner`s claim – although sometimes the owner must disclose ownership (if a buyer might believe the item has been abandoned). However, if the owner`s erroneous belief that the object does not belong to him causes an unlawful seizure, this seizure is not a conversion.

The view that an action for conversion applies only to movable property that can be identified and actually taken possession is based on a fiction on which the trover`s act is based, namely that the defendant has found someone else`s property that has been lost. This view has become irrelevant in the course of the law, which has been rejected by most courts. [49] [50] It is therefore generally accepted that an action for conversion applies to any type of movable property that is the subject of private property, whether living or inanimate. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Intangible property can be converted in the United States. [50] [56] There can be no action to convert the elected official into shares or simple debts. [57] [58] [59] Software can be converted. [56] In some jurisdictions, a claim and a rejection must be required to justify a conversion and maintain a subsequent conversion action. The usual rule is that application and rejection are never necessary, except to provide proof of conversion.

Without this, if the circumstances (circumstantial evidence) are sufficient to prove conversion, the application and rejection are superfluous. [155] [156] In jurisdictions requiring a claim and a dismissal, there is no specific form of claim. [157] In cases where stolen property falls into the hands of a third party, it may be necessary to inform the third party that the property has been stolen. [158] Conversion may take place through the unjust denial of possession by the person entitled to it. The elements of the conversion are: Examples of conversion: 1) Alpha cuts down and removes trees on land he knows belongs to Beta without permission or privilege to do so; and 2) Gamma takes furniture from Delta and stores it without Delta`s consent (and especially if Delta doesn`t know where Gamma put it). A common act of conversion in the Middle Ages was bolts of cloth deposited for custody, which the guarantor or a third party took and made clothing for its own use or sale. The standard remedy for conversion is restitution of the property in question or damage to the market value of the property. It is generally accepted that interest lost on conversion is recoverable. The loss of rental value can be considered as an interest. [176] The intention necessary to hold liable a person who deprives another person of possession of his or her personal property is simply the intention to treat the property in such a way as to result in such expropriation.

It is not necessary for the actor to intend to commit a conversion. In particular, acting in “good faith” is not a defence to a conversion application. In addition, the sale of property authorized by the owner does not constitute a conversion of such property under Minnesota law. However, personal property can be converted without causing physical damage or destruction of property. In a situation where the property is destroyed, transformation can only be proven if the destruction was intentional. Membership by parties may normally be permitted. A person knowingly commits a behaviour when they are aware of a high probability that they will do so. Computers Unlimited v Midwest Data Sys., 657 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App.

1995). For it to be a conversion, a takeover of ownership must take place without the consent of the owner. There must be an action that gives the taker some control over the object, even if actual physical distance is not essential. Use or interference (a term generally applicable to inheritance law) in someone else`s property has often been considered transformation, whether the act is performed by someone who did not have the power to use the property or by someone who is authorized to use the property but uses it in an unauthorized manner.