A. The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or receive payment. An action for conversion of an instrument may not be brought by:
1. The issuer or acceptor of the instrument; or
2. A payee or indorsee who did not receive delivery of the instrument either directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.
B. In an action under subsection A, the measure of liability is presumed to be the amount payable on the instrument, but recovery may not exceed the amount of the plaintiff's interest in the instrument.
C. A representative, other than a depositary bank, who has in good faith dealt with an instrument or its proceeds on behalf of one who was not the person entitled to enforce the instrument is not liable in conversion to that person beyond the amount of any proceeds that it has not paid out.
Notes of Decisions
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 29× “Thus, even if the intent behind A.R.S. § 47-3420 was to displace common-law conversion actions if the U.”
San Tan Irrigation Dist. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 3 P.3d 1113 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 12× “Our focus on appeal thus becomes whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Wells Fargo exercised “good faith” as that term is used in sections 47-3405 and 47-3406. ANALYSIS ¶ 6 Section 47-3420 provides a right of recovery to the payee of an instrument against a…”
Antseliovich v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Appellants’ claim for conversion under A.R.S. § 47-3420 fails as to U.S. Bank; the superior court’s dismissal of that claim is therefore affirmed.”
Green Valley Villas West Condo. Ass'n v. Washington Fed. Bank (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 3× “) Wells Fargo assumes that, because Count One seeks to 25 "recredit" an account, it is governed by UCC §§ 3-420 and 4-401 (A.R.S. §§ 47-3420 and 26 47-4401)1 and it argues that, under both provisions, the claim fails as a matter of law.”
Midtown v. Farmers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 47-3420(A)(2); Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 141 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3420(A) — 2 cases
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“Thus, even if the intent behind A.R.S. § 47-3420 was to displace common-law conversion actions if the U.”
Antseliovich v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“Appellants’ claim for conversion under A.R.S. § 47-3420 fails as to U.S. Bank; the superior court’s dismissal of that claim is therefore affirmed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3420(A)(1) — 1 case
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“Thus, even if the intent behind A.R.S. § 47-3420 was to displace common-law conversion actions if the U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3420(A)(2) — 1 case
Midtown v. Farmers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“A.R.S. § 47-3420(A)(2); Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 141 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3420(A)(l) — 1 case
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“Thus, even if the intent behind A.R.S. § 47-3420 was to displace common-law conversion actions if the U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.