Property Invasion, Damages, Trespass Conversion of Property

[IslandGirl1]

While living in CA, I rented a storage unit in February 2007. In October 2007, I relocated to HI. Due to a rental increase, my boyfriend relocated my belongings to another facility in November 2007 and put the storage unit in his name since he was local. I, however paid the monthly rental fee. Additional expensive jewelry and clothing was also stored in his condo. Unbeknowst to me he married in September 2010 and eventually told me 4 months later. At that time I informed him we had to make arrangements for my stuff. He responded" "Don't worry, it's safe." His wife erroneously believed that he was paying for the storage unit. In February 2011, she sent me a letter stating that " All of your things that Hank had are ALL gone." After some additional drivel, she wrote:"PS: Your clothes are on their way to you" (At that time, I didn't make the connection to the storage unit. The letter was poorly written and I thought she was struggling with being articulate). Fast forward to June 7, 2011 when I received a letter from Hank's attorney informing me of an unauthorized entry. Since that time, I have been attempting to negotiate a reasonable settlement. This has been very emotionally difficult as my life's possessions were disposed of and as a result I had a meltdown at work and was let go. My questions are: (a) Is the statute of limitations 2 years and when does the clock start ticking? (b) If a settlement is offered but there's no verbiage addressing the items lost from the condo nor did I ever receive the clothes she said she was sending, do I still have recourse to sue his wife separately? and (c) Can she be made to divulge what she did with my personal belongings?

 

[army judge]

If you say the SOL is two years, I'll take your word for it.
I don't think the SOL will be your problem.
You'll have to prove he took your stuff.
I doubt that he'll admit to ever taking possession of your goods.
Before you ask, an email isn't necessarily proof by itself.
If you do decide to sue, your lawsuit will be brought against him.
His wife never had a relationship with you or your goods, directly.
Bottom line, proof is always a problem.






You'll have to prove he assumed a gratuitous bailment for your goods, and he failed to exercise ordinary care for them, as this would have been a bailment exclusively for your benefit. How you prove there ever was a bailment will be your problem, over and above the SOL.






Gratuitous Bailment:

When the bailee (HIM) does not charge the bailor (YOU) for the bailment it is a gratuitous bailment.

Conversion is an intentional tort that evolved to protect against interference with possessory and ownership interests in personal property. It consists of the wrongful exercise of dominion or control over personal property, which so seriously interferes with another's right to control the property that the converter is required to pay the other the full value of the property as damages for the conversion.

Three elements required to establish a cause of action for conversion: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the alleged conversion; (2) defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff's property rights; and (3) damages.

The difference between a cause of action for conversion and one for trespass against personal property turns on the degree of the defendant's alleged interference with the plaintiff's rights in the property. The gist of a cause of action for conversion is proof of the defendant's actual and substantial exercise of dominion or control over the plaintiff's personal property, interfering with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In contrast, any wrongful interference or exercise of dominion over the personal property of another may give rise to a cause of action for trespass.

Where personal property has been converted, the plaintiff may choose either to sue for the tort, or waive the tort and sue in "assumpsit" either for the value of the property converted or for money had and received. In such a case, the plaintiff consents to, or subsequently ratifies, the conversion, and then proceeds on a theory of implied contract.

Property Owned Or Possessed By The Plaintiff: To establish a conversion, a plaintiff must show actual interference with his or her ownership or right to possess property. When the plaintiff neither has title to the allegedly converted property, nor possession of it, he or she cannot maintain an action for conversion. Legal title to the property is not required, but the plaintiff must have either actual possession of the property at the time of the alleged conversion or the right to immediate possession

Tangible Personal Property: California statutes do not define the type or character of personal property that is subject to an action for conversion. Under the common law of California, conversion traditionally applied only to wrongful interference with specific, identifiable pieces of tangible personal property. Conversion did not apply to intangible, indefinite, or uncertain property rights, such as the good will of a business, trade secrets, or a newspaper route.

Intangible Property: The common law rule requiring tangible property has been modified by the courts, and conversion now applies to certain classes of intangibles that are represented by documents. The California Uniform Commercial Code imposes liability for the conversion of instruments. [Civ. Code, §3420] The definition of "instrument" includes negotiable instruments. [Civ. Code, §3104, subd. (b)] California courts also have upheld causes of action for the conversion of corporate stock certificates and the shares represented by the certificates. Bonds also may be the subject of a conversion action.

Money: Money cannot be the subject of an action for conversion unless a specific, identifiable sum is involved. However, it is not necessary that each bill or coin be earmarked. Thus, when an agent is required to turn over to his or her principal a definite sum received on the principal's behalf, conversion is the proper remedy for failure to deliver. However, where the money or fund is not identified as a specific thing, the appropriate remedy is in implied contract or an action on the debt, not conversion.

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/conversion/conversion.html

 

[mightymoose]

The SOL would start when you discovered the matter, likely February 2011. From what I can tell the SOL on civil property matters is 3 years.
Hank's entry likely did not require your authorization since he was technically the renter.
If you are not satisfied with the settlement offer then make a counteroffer and explain why you are asking for more.
No, you can't compel his wife to do much of anything.