Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin
2012 WL 42919, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 125, 358 S.W.3d 428 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conversion is the unauthorized and wrongful exercise of control over another's personal property, for which the tortfeasor's good faith or innocence is not a defense. When converted property has no readily ascertainable market value, damages are measured by the property's actual value to the owner at the time of loss, which may be established by its recent purchase price when the property is new and has undergone little to no depreciation or wear.
Facts:
- Wesley Henson co-owned a company with an inoperable polyurethane machine mounted inside a trailer.
- Allen Reddin, a potential buyer, purchased new parts worth $4,561.52 to attempt to repair the machine and determine its value.
- With Henson's knowledge, Reddin and his associate, Joseph Brophy, installed the new parts on the machine on a Friday.
- Reddin and Henson discussed a sale price for the machine that same day, and Reddin informed Henson that his new parts were installed on it.
- By the following Monday, Henson had moved the trailer containing the machine and Reddin's newly installed parts to his father-in-law's property.
- Reddin demanded the return of his parts, but Henson refused to return them.
- Due to the delay in access, resin crystallized inside the new parts, rendering them worthless.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen Reddin sued Wesley Henson for conversion in the justice court (a court of first instance for small claims).
- The justice court entered a default judgment against Henson after he failed to appear.
- Henson appealed the judgment to the county court at law (a trial court).
- Reddin amended his suit to add Henson's company, Discount Industrial Coating, Inc., as a defendant.
- The county court at law denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the conversion claim.
- After a bench trial, the county court at law entered a judgment in favor of Reddin, awarding him $4,561.52 in damages plus prejudgment interest, and issued formal findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Henson, as appellant, appealed the county court at law's judgment to the Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support a trial court's judgment finding a defendant liable for conversion and awarding damages equal to the recent purchase price of the newly acquired property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sue Walker
Yes, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings of conversion and its award of damages. To establish conversion, a plaintiff must prove ownership, the defendant's unauthorized exercise of control, a demand for return, and the defendant's refusal. The record supports that Reddin owned the parts, Henson exercised unauthorized control by moving the trailer and refusing access, Reddin demanded their return, and Henson refused. Henson's argument that he did not initially know the parts were on the trailer is irrelevant, as good faith or innocence is not a defense to conversion. Regarding damages, the general measure is fair market value. However, where there is no readily ascertainable market value, the measure is the actual value to the owner. Here, the parts were purchased just weeks before the conversion and installed only a day or two before being taken, meaning they had suffered little to no wear or depreciation. Therefore, the purchase price was sufficient evidence to establish their actual value at the time of the conversion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict liability nature of the tort of conversion, confirming that a defendant's intent or good faith is not a defense to the unauthorized exercise of dominion over another's property. It provides a clear framework for calculating damages for converted property that lacks a standard secondhand market, such as specialized equipment parts. The court's holding solidifies the principle that a recent purchase price can be legally and factually sufficient evidence of value, particularly when coupled with facts demonstrating the property is new and has not depreciated, thus simplifying the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in similar cases.
