Also known as: intentional dispossessions · dispossession
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional act that deprives another of possession of property. The actor must intend both the physical interference and the resulting exclusion of the rightful possessor.
Ismael Ibrahim returns minutes after a marina chains his boat without process. He uses moderate force to free it while the dockhand attempts to stop him. The immediate timing satisfies the condition for justified recaption after dispossession.
Idris Ives removes Ingrid Innes's equipment from her worksite without consent. He loads it onto his truck and drives away. The removal constitutes intentional dispossession of the chattel.
Ivan Ivanov takes Irene Ingalls's tools and refuses to return them after repeated demands. The extended withholding prevents her from completing contracted work. Liability arises both for trespass and for conversion due to the interference with control.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Indigo Textiles sends bulk unsolicited messages that overload Iris Energy's servers. The volume of messages occupies server capacity and slows legitimate operations. The interference amounts to intentional dispossession of the chattel.
Infinity Bank changes the locks on a commercial tenant's space without a court order. The tenant returns the next day and is blocked from retrieving inventory. The self-help measure creates an unlawful dispossession subject to statutory process requirements.
A city ordinance transfers a railroad's private land to another entity without compensation. The owner challenges the transfer as lacking any judicial determination. The action effects an intentional dispossession without the required procedural safeguards.
Intentional dispossession requires proof that the claimant knew the land belonged to another and acted with the purpose of excluding the owner. Occupation under a mistaken belief about boundaries lacks this intent and fails the test in jurisdictions that impose the requirement.
Supporting sources
Force is permitted when used immediately or on fresh pursuit after the dispossession. The actor must believe the dispossession was unlawful and that the force is necessary to retake the property.
No. It creates liability for trespass to chattels for any resulting damage. Conversion arises only when the interference is so serious that the actor must pay the full value of the chattel.
The force must occur immediately or during fresh pursuit. Delayed action outside these windows generally removes the justification even if the original dispossession was unlawful.
…of procedure merely. In judicial proceedings the law of the land requires a hearing before condemnation, and judgment before dispossession; but when property is appropriated by the government to public uses, or the legislature interferes to give direction to its title through remedial statutes, different considerations from…