Also known as: exercising dominion or control · exercised dominion or control · exercises dominion or control · dominion and control
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional assertion of rights over a chattel that is inconsistent with the owner's right of control. The assertion must be serious enough to justify requiring the actor to pay the full value of the chattel.
Enzo Eastwood borrowed a specialized welding machine from Eastern Electric for a one-day project. While moving the machine back to storage, Enzo's assistant accidentally left it on the loading dock overnight where it was damaged by rain. Eastern Electric sued for conversion. Because Enzo did not intentionally assert ownership or control over the machine, he is not liable even though the handling was careless.
Eduardo Enriquez was driving a car with two passengers when officers found a large quantity of cash and drugs in the center console. All three denied ownership. Because the contraband was in a common area accessible to all occupants and no one claimed it, each person exercised dominion or control sufficient to support probable cause for joint possession.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ezra Eastman was a passenger in a car stopped by police. Officers found guns and drugs under the front seat within his reach. Because Ezra had the ability and intent to exercise dominion or control over the items located in the passenger compartment, he could be found in constructive possession even without physically holding them.
Conversion requires only that the defendant intentionally exercise dominion or control over the chattel. The defendant need not intend to cause legal harm or permanently exclude the owner. The focus is on whether the intentional act seriously interferes with the owner's rights.
Supporting sources
Good faith is only one factor in determining whether the interference is serious enough to constitute conversion. An honest but mistaken belief that the chattel belongs to someone else does not excuse the actor when the conduct results in serious interference such as destruction or permanent deprivation.
Supporting sources
Brief or minor unauthorized handling usually supports only trespass to chattels. Conversion requires a serious interference such as pledging property as collateral for weeks, refusing to return it for years, or permanently disposing of it.
Supporting sources
…it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or…