Unlawful Conversion of the Property Case Study

Case Title and Citation

The Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin, 358 S.W. 3d 428 case was filed on 13th March 2007, at the County Court at Law, Wise County. The Defendant, Wesley Henson, together with Joseph Brophy, owned Discount Industrial Coating each with 50 percent shares. One of the assets owned by the company was a machine for spraying polyurethane on different surfaces, most notably truck-bed liners, however the machine had clogged after an extended period of not being used. It is important to note that this machine was hosted on a trailer, parked on the company premises and branded Discount Industrial Coating Incorporated, but owned by Henson.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In December 2006, Henson made a decision to sell his shares in the company, and Allen Reddin, known herein as the Plaintiff, expressed interest in purchasing the machine. He agreed to bear the repair costs for the machine to ensure it works before buying. Reddin, using his money sourced for assorted hoses, a pump, foam and a fusion gun. The parts, bought from dealers around, cost $4,561.52. In January of 2007 however, with repairs on the machine still ongoing, Henson moved the trailer, including Reddin's parts, to another location not only grinding repairs to a halt but also causing the foam to set, which essentially caused wastage.

Procedural History

Redding filed a suit against Henson for what he termed 'converting his parts.' The defendant, Henson, failed to appear in court and Reddin was awarded $4,561.52, which is the amount he spent on the parts, plus $857.94 in court costs against the Defendant. Henson appealed the judgement at the Court of Appeals in the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth on 5th January 2012, and went further to request Discount Industrial Coating be enjoined in the case. The Plaintiff added Discount Industrial Coating as a second Defendant.

Facts

Regarding the conversion claim, the courts went through facts and outlined them from the findings that Wesley Henson, now Defendant, decided to sell his share of equity in Discount Industrial Coating Incorporated, which could be covered by the sale of a company asset; a polyurethane machine. In December of 2006, Allen Reddin, now Plaintiff, showed interest in purchasing the said machine, however since it was not in working order he agreed to foot the cost of repairs and make it work before purchasing it. He, the Plaintiff, went ahead and acquired the repair tools, herein called Property, from retailers at a cost of $4,561.52, which were of the same market value in Wise County, Texas, at the time.

As at the time of these events, the rightful owner of the said Property was the Plaintiff, Allen Reddin, however in January of 2007, the Defendant, Henson, moved his truck together with the company spraying machine and the Plaintiff's repair tools to a different location, halting the repair process and unlawfully infringing into the Plaintiff's rights to his Property. Though the Defendant's business associate, Brophy, located the truck and attempted to bring it back to the company premises on the basis of being a half shareholder, a police officer intervened as asked him to take the truck back then seek legal redress. The Plaintiff, Reddin, then filed a suit against Henson on 13th March 2007.

Issue

The first issue is whether the Defendant, Wesley Henson, converted the Plaintiff's Property into his own without consent. If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the lack of access to the machine for long by the Plaintiff caused the resins to sit in the pump long enough to crystalize, going to waste. Conversion is the act of wrongfully taking control and dominion over property rightfully owned by another individual, which infringes into his ownership rights as in the case of Khorshid Incorporated versus Uche Christian in Dallas, 2008).

Henson, now an Appellant, disputes the summary judgment by the County Court at Law as regards him converting Reddin's property, but granted the same on the money awarded as claim.

Ruling and Reasoning

The court made the following conclusions of the law:

• Despite conflicting testimonies about the Defendant permitting the Plaintiff to pick his property but refusing to pick nor return the Plaintiff's calls, there exists sufficient evidence pointing to a conversion of the Plaintiff's property by the Defendant.
• The Defendant, even with the intervention of business associate Joseph Brophy, refused to surrender the Property back to its rightful owner, as in the case of Glen Smith versus Maximum Racing Inc., Texas, 2004.
• The evidence in the form of receipts, which was in tune with the market value at the time, was favorable and sufficient proof of purchase of the said property within the period of conversion.
• The Defendant assumes liability for the damages occasioned as a result of the above to a tune of $4,561.52, and a further $857.94 as prejudgment interest.
• The amount awarded to the Plaintiff bears a 5% interest rate starting December 16, 2010 until the day it is fully paid.

Dissenting or Concurring Opinion

There was a unanimous judgement based on sufficient evidence pointing to unlawful conversion of the Plaintiff's property by the Defendant, and the subsequent wastage and damaging of the same.

References

Khorshid, Inc. v. Christian, 257 S. W.3d 748, 758-59. (Tex. App. Dallas 2008).

Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin, 358 S.W.3d 428. 02-11-00029-CV. (Tex. App. 2012)

Smith v. Maximum Racing, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 337, 341. Tex. App. (Austin 2004).