What Does the Word Conversion Mean in Law
Conversion is an interference with the ownership of someone else`s property. This is a general intentional offence, not a specific intentional offence. This means that the intention to take the property or otherwise treat it is sufficient to support the claim, and it does not matter whether the defendant knows that the act would constitute an interference with someone else`s property. Therefore, the accused`s innocent reasons for the act cannot be used as an excuse. It does not matter that the defendant made a mistake. The standard remedy for conversion is a judgment of damages equal to the fair value of the property. Punitive damages are also possible, as conversion is an intentional offense. A person who knowingly or intentionally exercises unauthorized control over another person`s property commits a criminal conversion. A person behaves knowingly if, when participating in the behavior, he is very likely to be aware of it. Computer Unlimited v Midwest Data Sys., 657 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Do you have a case where you believe conversion is involved? Contact an experienced lawyer for a free case review. Conversion has been described as a fascinating crime, although it has largely escaped the attention of legal writers. Literature is often confused with that of the Trovers.         Other sources define transformation as an autonomous act of wrongful supremacy over the personal property of others by denying or incompatible with their title or rights, or by derogating, excluding or disrespecting such title or rights without the consent of the owner and without legal justification.     The elements of conversion are: (1) the intention to convert the tangible or intangible property of others into one`s own possession and use, (2) The property in question is converted at a later date.     Conversion as a purely civil injustice differs from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act incompatible with someone else`s rights, and theft will also be a transformation. But not all conversions are thefts, because conversion does not require an element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. When someone claims unjust enrichment, the person who owns someone else can always make a change of position in defense to say that they unknowingly used the assets they transferred. For conversion, there must always be an element of voluntary treatment of someone else`s property that is incompatible with their rights. Tangible and intangible property may be subject to a conversion application under U.S.
law. In Kremen v Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2003), when the sex.com domain name was wrongly transferred to a fraudster, a conversion right against the domain name registrar was considered available. However, in English law, the most recent case obg Ltd. v. Allan  UKHL 21 held intangible assets cannot be the subject of a conversion application. For a transformation to take place, it had to be lost earlier and found by someone other than the owner. It was possible that the property could be converted.
 Converted items included a dog, money, and tax revenue.  Land could not be the subject of an action in Trover because it could not be lost, then found and transformed. The same was true for sand and gravel, wood, grain and accessories as long as they were considered part of the country. No action could be taken in Trover. As soon as there was a separation from the land, these became personal possessions, and Trover could be maintained due to the distance from the land.       The holder of a partial share of immovable property may be held liable for its conversion if he improperly removes it from the possession of another person or performs another act that amounts to a conversion.  Here are the typical defendants in a conversion action: A conversion is usually proven in one of three ways: The modern law of conversion crystallized after Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M&W 540, 151 ER 1153. Two horses in the applicant`s possession were placed on a river ferry. The horses were returned to shore by the accused smuggler.
The applicant/owner of the horses remained on the ferry and then lost the horses. It was concluded that this was an intrusion, but not a conversion, since there was no interference with the plaintiff`s “general right of domination” over the horses. A conversion occurs when a person performs such acts in relation to the personal property of others as an amount under the law in order to appropriate the property for himself.  The action probably developed because there was no comparable form of action in English law as in Roman law rei vindicatio. It was a lawsuit to protect one`s own property, where a plaintiff could simply claim in court, “It`s mine!”  The first cases of processing can be found in 1479, where reference is made to an even older trial in this case, when the defendant “transformed” the goods by changing their character and making garments out of gold fabric.   Note: For income tax purposes, involuntary conversions are generally taxable, and profit or loss is calculated by offsetting the base of the property with the compensation received (from insurance). Some jurisdictions require that a claim and rejection be necessary to establish a conversion and maintain a subsequent action for conversion. The usual rule is that the claim and rejection are never necessary except to provide proof of conversion. Otherwise, if the circumstances (circumstantial evidence) are sufficient to prove conversion, the application and rejection are superfluous.   In legal systems that require a claim and a rejection, there is no specific form that the claim must take.
 In cases where stolen property ends up in the hands of a third party, it may be necessary to inform the third party that the property has been stolen.  Many business co-ownership issues, such as a partnership, are equity and do not reach the conversion level. Traditionally, a transformation takes place when certain movable property is lost and then found by another who appropriates it for his own use without legal authorization. It also applied in cases where movable property had been released on bail and then misused or abused by the beneficiary of the surety or a third party. In jurisdictions that recognize it, criminal transformation is a less serious crime than theft/theft. Conversion is considered the civilian side of theft, i.e. the abusive removal of non-immovable property from another without required permission. Conversion is civil injustice, while theft is the criminal act. See our article on criminal law. Unlike embezzlement, there is not necessarily a breach of trust, although normally, if there is such a breach of trust, actions for embezzlement and transformation are brought against the defendant. If one suffers from the illegal removal of property of any kind, one can complain to the police and request that a criminal complaint be filed and/or one can initiate a civil action for damages based on the offense of conversion.
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Articles on Conversion The following traditional defences against a conversion action: To maintain a conversion action, the plaintiff must have an interest in the converted property. He must recover from the strength of his own title, regardless of the weakness of his opponent. It is necessary that the applicant be the owner of the property allegedly converted or that he is entitled to own or possess at the time of the alleged conversion. An absolute, unqualified title is sufficient, but not necessary. A simple right of ownership is generally considered to be a sufficient interest to support a legal action.   In general, the respondent should respond to the allegation of conversion by arguing: In alternative wording, it has been said that a person who requires conversion must prove an unauthorized transformation of the movable property, a right of ownership over it. and a right to immediate possession that is absolute, unconditional and not dependent on the performance of an action.   A conversion can be committed by unreasonably depriving someone who is entitled to possession of it […].