Conversion, Cash

Conversion is the unauthorized assumption of the right of ownership over the personal property of another to the exclusion of the owner’s rights. Hunt v. Estate of Hunt, 348 S.W.3d 103, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). It may be shown in three ways: (1) tortious taking; (2) any use or appropriation to the use of the person in possession, indicating a claim of right in opposition to the owner’s rights; or (3) by refusal to give up possession to the owner on demand. Gadberry v. Bird, 191 S.W.3d 673, 675 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Personal property” for purposes of conversion does not include cash. Therefore, one cannot generally sue another in civil court for the conversion of cash. Johnson v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 162 S.W.3d 110, 125 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). There is, however, an exception to the exception: misappropriated funds in someone’s custody for a definite purpose may be subject to a suit for conversion when a defendant diverts those funds to another, different purpose. Gadberry, 191 S.W.3d at 675-76.
Contact with questions.

Related Articles

Premises Liability: Third-Party Criminal Acts

November 22, 2023

As a general rule, if a customer/invitee of a business is harmed by a third-party criminal act, the business is not responsible. The rationale for this rule is that criminal acts are rarely foreseeable. Early v. Dunn, 670 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). There are a number of exceptions. First, a duty arises…

Read More

Mootness, Exceptions

October 19, 2023

Courts generally shy away from rendering decisions in moot cases. A case is moot when “the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” DCM v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. 2019). There…

Read More

Comity, Multiple Lawsuits, Litigation

October 11, 2023

In complex situations, it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be pending in multiple jurisdictions. When this occurs, one court, in the interests of comity, may allow the other court to handle the entire dispute. At the state level in Missouri, comity is not an ironclad rule, but a rule of “practice, convenience, and…

Read More

Contracts: General versus Specific Provisions

October 2, 2023

Parties are bound to the terms of the contract they sign, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. Lehman v. Automotive Investments, LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In analyzing contracts, courts focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. Often times, however, a conflict can arise between what…

Read More
Scroll to Top