Gissel v. State
111 Idaho 725, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 524, 727 P.2d 1153 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person in possession of a chattel, even if they acquired it wrongfully as a trespasser, has a superior right to that chattel against any third party who is not the true owner.
Facts:
- Lester and Conrad Gissel, along with Dave and John Lewis, harvested wild rice from land jointly owned by the State of Idaho and the U.S. National Forest Service.
- The wild rice was intentionally cultivated on the land to serve as habitat and food for migratory waterfowl.
- Officials from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game observed the Gissels harvesting the rice.
- The officials obtained a search warrant for Lester Gissel's residence.
- During the search, the state found and seized 180 bags of wild rice harvested by the Gissels.
- To prevent spoilage, the Gissels' attorney and the county prosecutor stipulated to the sale of the perishable rice, with the proceeds to be held pending legal proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Lester Gissel, Conrad Gissel, and David Lewis were charged with and convicted of criminal trespass in magistrate court.
- The district court, on appeal, set aside the jury verdict.
- The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the district court, effectively reinstating the conviction.
- On remand back to the trial court, the prosecutor dismissed the criminal charges.
- The Gissels filed a civil Notice of Claim against the State of Idaho for the proceeds of the seized rice, which the State denied.
- The Gissels filed a civil complaint against the State in district court for conversion.
- The district court, acting as the trial court in the civil matter, found in favor of the Gissels and awarded them the value of the rice harvested from Forest Service land.
- The State of Idaho (appellant) appealed the district court's civil judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho, with the Gissels as respondents.
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 trespasser who harvests property from land owned by one party have a superior right to the proceeds of that property against a different party who seizes it but is not the true owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Donaldson, C.J.
Yes. A trespasser who harvests property has a superior right of possession to the proceeds of that property against a third party who is not the true owner. The Gissels, as prior possessors, have a superior right as against the State to the proceeds from the rice harvested on U.S. Forest Service land. Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's property inconsistent with their rights, and mere possession is sufficient to sustain a trespasser's cause of action against all but the true owner. Since the State of Idaho was not the true owner of the rice from Forest Service land, its refusal to account for and return those proceeds to the Gissels constituted conversion. The court also found no evidence to support the State's claim that it was acting as an agent for the Forest Service.
Dissenting - Bakes, J.
No. A trespasser who wrongfully takes property should not be able to maintain an action for conversion based on a claim of prior possession. The state's seizure of the rice was not wrongful, as it was done pursuant to a valid search warrant, and therefore a key element of conversion is missing. A claimant in a conversion action must recover on the strength of their own title, not the weakness of the adversary's, and an admitted 'thief' has no legally cognizable right to the property. Allowing a wrongdoer like Gissel to recover condones theft and undermines the purpose of property law, which is to protect the interests of the true owner, not the trespasser.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the common law doctrine of 'relativity of title,' establishing that property rights are not absolute but are determined relative to the parties in the dispute. The decision confirms that even a wrongful possessor (a trespasser) has a legally protected possessory interest that is superior to everyone except the true owner. This principle is significant because it prioritizes the stability of possession and discourages a 'free-for-all' where third parties might interfere with chattels, even if possessed by a wrongdoer. The case demonstrates that the law will protect possession itself, separate from the question of ultimate ownership, sometimes leading to outcomes where a party with 'unclean hands' prevails.
