conversion claim in Oregon

2014The Court of Appeals also reasoned that, although ORS 12.010 provides that an action must be commenced within the applicable period of limitation after a cause of action has “accrued,” a conversion claim “accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner that seriously interferes with the owner’s rights.” Rice, 251 Or App at 608 .

2013The cases in which we have held flatly that no discovery rule applies either have not involved tort claims subject to the ORS 12.110(1) two-year limitations period — e.g., Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 511-12 , 198 P3d 445 (2008) (breach of contract claim) — or have related to torts that did not involve claims of bodily harm, i.e., Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 608-09 , 284 P3d 1178 (2012), rev allowed, 353 Or 280 (2013) (conversion; also noting that “a conversion claim accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner tha

2013To succeed in a conversion claim, the plaintiff must prove “an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel.” Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658, 663 , 456 P2d 1004 (1969) (adopting the definition of conversion found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A(1) (1965)).

2013To succeed in a conversion claim, the plaintiff must prove “an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel.” Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658, 663 , 456 P2d 1004 (1969) (adopting the definition of conversion found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A(1) (1965)).

2011“To state a claim for conversion, a party must establish the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel.” Emmert v. No Problem Harry, Inc., 222 Or App 151, 159-60 , 192 P3d 844 (2008).

2011“To state a claim for conversion, a party must establish the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel.” Emmert v. No Problem Harry, Inc., 222 Or App 151, 159-60 , 192 P3d 844 (2008).

2025With regard to the conversion claim, plaintiff’s argument is undeveloped, and we decline to address it. 278 Hunt v. Goffman App 112, 117, 77 P3d 1150 (2003); see also ORS 124.110(1)(a) (an action for financial abuse of an elderly person may be brought “[w]hen a person wrongfully takes or appropriates money or property of” an elderly person).

2023No.1J, 303 Or 1, 17 , 734 P2d 1326 (1987) (requiring a protected interest for a negligence claim).

2023No.1J, 303 Or 1, 17 , 734 P2d 1326 (1987) (requiring a protected interest for a negligence claim).

2022Cite as 321 Or App 721 (2022) 731 fiduciary responsibilities qualifies as, and is enforceable as, conversion.” The trial court granted Dolich’s motion for a directed ver- dict on the claim.

2020Although a typical conversion claim involves interference with the right to control a chattel, money can be converted “under certain circumstances,” namely where the money was “wrongfully received by the party charged with conversion or * * * such party was under obligation to return the specific money to the party claiming it.” Wood Ind’l Corp. v. Rose, 271 Or 103, 108 , 530 P2d 1245 (1975).

2020Although a typical conversion claim involves interference with the right to control a chattel, money can be converted “under certain circumstances,” namely where the money was “wrongfully received by the party charged with conversion or * * * such party was under obligation to return the specific money to the party claiming it.” Wood Ind’l Corp. v. Rose, 271 Or 103, 108 , 530 P2d 1245 (1975).

2019With respect to the intentional interference with economic relations claim, defendants argued only that, under an Oregon District Court decision, IKON Office Solutions v. American Office , 178 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D.

2013The cases in which we have held flatly that no discovery rule applies either have not involved tort claims subject to the ORS 12.110(1) two-year limitations period — e.g., Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 511-12 , 198 P3d 445 (2008) (breach of contract claim) — or have related to torts that did not involve claims of bodily harm, i.e., Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 608-09 , 284 P3d 1178 (2012), rev allowed, 353 Or 280 (2013) (conversion; also noting that “a conversion claim accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner tha

2013The cases in which we have held flatly that no discovery rule applies either have not involved tort claims subject to the ORS 12.110(1) two-year limitations period — e.g., Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 511-12 , 198 P3d 445 (2008) (breach of contract claim) — or have related to torts that did not involve claims of bodily harm, i.e., Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 608-09 , 284 P3d 1178 (2012), rev allowed, 353 Or 280 (2013) (conversion; also noting that “a conversion claim accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner tha

2013The cases in which we have held flatly that no discovery rule applies either have not involved tort claims subject to the ORS 12.110(1) two-year limitations period — e.g., Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 511-12 , 198 P3d 445 (2008) (breach of contract claim) — or have related to torts that did not involve claims of bodily harm, i.e., Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 608-09 , 284 P3d 1178 (2012), rev allowed, 353 Or 280 (2013) (conversion; also noting that “a conversion claim accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner tha

2013The cases in which we have held flatly that no discovery rule applies either have not involved tort claims subject to the ORS 12.110(1) two-year limitations period — e.g., Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 511-12 , 198 P3d 445 (2008) (breach of contract claim) — or have related to torts that did not involve claims of bodily harm, i.e., Rice v. Rabb, 251 Or App 603, 608-09 , 284 P3d 1178 (2012), rev allowed, 353 Or 280 (2013) (conversion; also noting that “a conversion claim accrues at the time the defendant exercises wrongful dominion or control over property in a manner tha

2012Everman v. Lockwood, 144 Or App 28, 31-33 , 925 P2d 128 (1996) (conversion action accrued at the time of wrongful control over the property).

2012Everman v. Lockwood, 144 Or App 28, 31-33 , 925 P2d 128 (1996) (conversion action accrued at the time of wrongful control over the property).

2011For the same reason there was no ‘taking’ there necessarily was no ‘conversion’ here.” (Emphasis added.) On appeal, the county continues to assert that the conversion claim is precluded because the district court “expressly found that the County had disposed of the rabbits *503 lawfully under a County code provision.” The problem with that argument, however, is that issue preclusion applies only to issues that were “essential to a final decision on the merits in the prior proceeding.” Nelson, 318 Or at 104 .

2006Reynolds, 197 Or App at 578-79 .

2001See Schlecht v. Bliss, 271 Or. 304, 309-11 , 532 P.2d 1 (1975) (identifying exceptions to the principle that accepting the benefits of a judgment will bar an appeal); Mask and Mask, 143 Or.App. 377, 380-81 , 923 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2001See Schlecht v. Bliss, 271 Or. 304, 309-11 , 532 P.2d 1 (1975) (identifying exceptions to the principle that accepting the benefits of a judgment will bar an appeal); Mask and Mask, 143 Or.App. 377, 380-81 , 923 P.2d 1304 (1996).

1998Lanz v. Douglas Tool & Engineering, Inc., 138 Or.App. 89, 92 , 907 P.2d 1128 (1995).

1998Lanz v. Douglas Tool & Engineering, Inc., 138 Or.App. 89, 92 , 907 P.2d 1128 (1995).

1998Generally, on appeal the case, criminal or civil, should be heard on the same theory upon which it was presented in the court below * * *—except where important considerations of public policy are encountered in the solution of a case before the court." State v. Hickmann 273 Or. 358, 360 , 540 P.2d 1406 (1975) (citation omitted). [1] The normal measure of damages in a conversion claim is the reasonable market value of the property at the time of the conversion.

1998Generally, on appeal the case, criminal or civil, should be heard on the same theory upon which it was presented in the court below * * *—except where important considerations of public policy are encountered in the solution of a case before the court." State v. Hickmann 273 Or. 358, 360 , 540 P.2d 1406 (1975) (citation omitted). [1] The normal measure of damages in a conversion claim is the reasonable market value of the property at the time of the conversion.

1990Peterson v. City Council for City of Lake Oswego, 32 Or App 181 , 574 P2d 326 (1978). 7 Defendants’ fifth assignment of error is that the trial court should not have entered judgment awarding prejudgment interest, because there was no pleading, proof or relief requesting prejudgment interest on the conversion claim.

1990Peterson v. City Council for City of Lake Oswego, 32 Or App 181 , 574 P2d 326 (1978). 7 Defendants’ fifth assignment of error is that the trial court should not have entered judgment awarding prejudgment interest, because there was no pleading, proof or relief requesting prejudgment interest on the conversion claim.

1990We view the evidence, including inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Leggett v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 86 Or App 523, 528 , 739 P2d 1083 (1987), to determine if there was sufficient evidence on which the jury could reach a verdict in favor of plaintiff.

1990We view the evidence, including inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Leggett v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 86 Or App 523, 528 , 739 P2d 1083 (1987), to determine if there was sufficient evidence on which the jury could reach a verdict in favor of plaintiff.

1960And in National Bank of Topeka v. Saia, 154 Kan 740, 121 P2d 251 , 138 ALR 1290 (1942), the following statement is made: "* * * What necessity is there then for asking a court of equity to invoke the equitable doctrine of conversion?

1960And in National Bank of Topeka v. Saia, 154 Kan 740, 121 P2d 251 , 138 ALR 1290 (1942), the following statement is made: "* * * What necessity is there then for asking a court of equity to invoke the equitable doctrine of conversion?

1960In McCarthy v. General Electric Co., 151 Or 519, 524 , 49 P2d 993 , this court held that if converted goods are even returned to the owner and accepted by him, it will not cure the conversion or be a bar to an action for conversion.

1960In McCarthy v. General Electric Co., 151 Or 519, 524 , 49 P2d 993 , this court held that if converted goods are even returned to the owner and accepted by him, it will not cure the conversion or be a bar to an action for conversion.