conversion claim in District of Columbia

2017Comm’n, 61 A.3d 662, 675 (D.C. 2013) (quoting Baltimore v. District of Columbia, 10 A.3d 1141, 1155 (D.C. 2011)),= The personal property at issue is generally chattel,.but money can also be the-subject of a conversion claim “if the plaintiff has the right to- a specific identifiable fund of money.” McNamara v. Picken, 950 F.Supp.2d 193, 194 (D.D.C. 2013).

2017The personal property at issue is generally chattel, but money can also be the subject of a conversion claim ―if the plaintiff has the right to a specific identifiable fund of money.‖ McNamara v. Picken, 950 F. Supp. 2d 193, 194 (D.D.C. 2013).

2017Comm’n, 61 A.3d 662, 675 (D.C. 2013) (quoting Baltimore v. District of Columbia, 10 A.3d 1141, 1155 (D.C. 2011)),= The personal property at issue is generally chattel,.but money can also be the-subject of a conversion claim “if the plaintiff has the right to- a specific identifiable fund of money.” McNamara v. Picken, 950 F.Supp.2d 193, 194 (D.D.C. 2013).

2014Baltimore v. District of Columbia, 10 A.3d 1141, 1155-56 (D.C.2011). “[A] conversion claim cannot be grounded on abandoned property,” since the abandoning party can no longer assert a right to the property over which he or she intentionally relinquished control.

2017Mr. Papageorge primarily argues that he had a valid contractual lien that Mr. Zucker and Ms. Daus refused to accept, and that the attorneys‘ wrongful failure to ratify the lien entitled him to an equitable lien. ―Broadly speaking, equity may impose a lien to effectuate some underlying agreement between debtor and creditor or in other circumstances where justice requires.‖ Wolf v. Sherman, 682 A.2d 194, 197 (D.C. 1996).

2017Comm’n, 61 A.3d 662, 675 (D.C. 2013) (quoting Baltimore v. District of Columbia, 10 A.3d 1141, 1155 (D.C. 2011)),= The personal property at issue is generally chattel,.but money can also be the-subject of a conversion claim “if the plaintiff has the right to- a specific identifiable fund of money.” McNamara v. Picken, 950 F.Supp.2d 193, 194 (D.D.C. 2013).

2013“A debt is liquidated if at the time it arose, it was an easily ascertainable sum certain.” District of Columbia v. Campbell, 580 A.2d 1295, 1300 (D.C.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2013A demand for the return of property “is necessary only when there are no other facts and circumstances independently establishing a conversion.” Bowler v. Joyner, 562 A.2d 1210, 1212 (D.C.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1213 (noting circumstances — such as the expiration of a lease on an apartment where the appellant’s personal property was allegedly converted — that “would have created an implied demand for the return of the property”).

2013A demand for the return of property “is necessary only when there are no other facts and circumstances independently establishing a conversion.” Bowler v. Joyner, 562 A.2d 1210, 1212 (D.C.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1213 (noting circumstances — such as the expiration of a lease on an apartment where the appellant’s personal property was allegedly converted — that “would have created an implied demand for the return of the property”).

2011See, e.g., Block v. Fisher, 103 A.2d 575, 576 (D.C.1954) (“Abandonment of personal property is a complete defense to an action for conversion.”).

2010Smith, 686 A.2d at 212 (holding that matters of public record are not treated as matters outside the pleadings) (citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986)); see Wise v. Glickman, 257 F.Supp.2d 123 , 130 n. 5 (D.D.C.2003) (court is “allowed to take judicial notice of matters in the general public record, including records and reports of administrative bodies and records of prior litigation, without triggering the conversion requirement”).

2010Smith, 686 A.2d at 212 (holding that matters of public record are not treated as matters outside the pleadings) (citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986)); see Wise v. Glickman, 257 F.Supp.2d 123 , 130 n. 5 (D.D.C.2003) (court is “allowed to take judicial notice of matters in the general public record, including records and reports of administrative bodies and records of prior litigation, without triggering the conversion requirement”).

2010Smith, 686 A.2d at 212 (holding that matters of public record are not treated as matters outside the pleadings) (citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986)); see Wise v. Glickman, 257 F.Supp.2d 123 , 130 n. 5 (D.D.C.2003) (court is “allowed to take judicial notice of matters in the general public record, including records and reports of administrative bodies and records of prior litigation, without triggering the conversion requirement”).

1989The case was tried in April 1986 and considered by this court on its summary calendar of March 21, 1989. [3] There was testimony that Parker had placed his belongings in cartons and large trash bags to protect them during a refurbishment by outside workmen of his living quarters and those of others on the same floor. [4] Parker testified at trial that, among other things, he had lost a number of gold watches, jewelry, family papers, genealogical research into his family history, the family Bibles, and other books and items. [5] A motion for a new trial is ordinarily addressed to the discretion