France v. Nelson
729 S.W.2d 161, 292 Ark. 219, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2111 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord commits the tort of conversion by intentionally exercising dominion over property owned by a third party and refusing to return it until the landlord's tenant pays an unrelated debt.
Facts:
- George Nelson, owner of an appliance rental business, rented a washer, dryer, television, and stereo system to Danny and Lena Adams.
- The Adamses were tenants in a mobile home located in a park owned by Bob France.
- The Adamses failed to pay their weekly rent on the appliances to Nelson.
- The Adamses also failed to pay their rent to France and vacated the mobile home, leaving Nelson's rental property behind.
- Nelson and his employee made multiple attempts to recover the appliances from the mobile home.
- France refused to release the items, stating that he would not return them until the Adamses' unpaid rent was paid to him.
- France changed the lock on the mobile home, preventing access to the property.
Procedural Posture:
- George Nelson filed suit against Bob France in the circuit court (trial court), seeking an order of replevin to recover his property and damages for conversion.
- The circuit judge issued a pre-trial replevin order, and a deputy sheriff recovered most of the items and delivered them to Nelson.
- After a bench trial, the trial judge, sitting as the factfinder, found that France had committed conversion.
- The trial court awarded Nelson $510 in compensatory damages and $200 in punitive damages.
- France, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Arkansas for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord commit the tort of conversion by refusing to return a third party's property, left on the premises by a former tenant, until the tenant's overdue rent is paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Hickman, J.
Yes. A landlord commits conversion by intentionally and wrongfully possessing a third party's property without legal justification. France had no legal right to hold Nelson's property as leverage to collect rent owed by the Adamses. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of conversion, which is a common law tort distinct from a replevin action. The damages awarded were for this tort, calculated based on the lost rental income for the 17 weeks France wrongfully held the property. The award of punitive damages was justified by France's obstinance, his willful deprivation of Nelson's property, and his refusal to comply with law enforcement until threatened with arrest.
Concurring - Newbern, J.
Yes. Although the majority reaches the correct outcome, its reasoning is flawed because it accepts the trial court's mischaracterization of the claim. The trial judge's award was functionally for incidental damages in a replevin action (for loss of use), not damages for conversion. Conversion and replevin are inconsistent remedies; conversion implies a forced sale where the plaintiff recovers the property's value, while replevin involves the return of the property itself plus damages for loss of use. By focusing on the trial court's mistaken terminology of 'conversion,' the majority avoids addressing the proper calculation of damages in a replevin action. The judgment should be affirmed by looking at the substance of the award (replevin damages) rather than the trial court's incorrect label.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the clear distinction between the statutory remedy of replevin and the common law tort of conversion. It establishes that a landlord's claim for unpaid rent from a tenant does not create a lien or right to possess property owned by an innocent third party found on the premises. The case serves as a strong precedent against self-help remedies where a landlord holds a third party's goods hostage, confirming that such actions constitute an independent tort and can expose the landlord to both compensatory and punitive damages. The concurrence, however, highlights the critical difference in remedies, suggesting that future courts should be precise in distinguishing between damages for conversion (value of the property) and incidental damages for replevin (loss of use).
