Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06153/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALflnitedia!es ~o~t !? Appeals 

'f enth Cir01it FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DATA PROGRAMMING SYSTEMS, INC.; JOHN W. ) 

DISTERDICK, an individual, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 3 0 199'1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6153 

(D.C. No. 86-1796-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6153 Document: 010110083616 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from a jury verdict awarding plaintiff 

damages for the conversion of money by the defendant, FDIC. 

Defendant appeals raising several issues concerning the district 

court's instructions and other matters which occurred during 

trial. We conclude the district court improperly instructed the 

jury on the burden of proof and reverse. 

Defendant first argues that the district court improperly 

instructed the jury by impermissibly placing the burden of proof 

on defendant. Defendant maintains the burden should have been on 

plaintiffs to prove their entitlement to the money. We agree. 

Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over another 

person's property in denial of that person's rights to the 

property. ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. L-P Gas Equip., Inc., 453 

F. Supp. 671, 676 (W.D. Okla. 1978). In an action for conversion, 

the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove every fact 

essential to their right to recover. 

371 P.2d 715, 717 (Okla. 1962). 

See Benton v. Ortenberger, 

Specifically, they must show 

their ownership or right to possession of the property and an 

affirmative, wrongful act by defendant. See id. Thus, the 

district court incorrectly placed the burden on defendant. 

Harmless error analysis, however, applies when an instruction 

impermissibly places the burden of proof on one party. Glados, 

Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 888 F.2d 1309, 1314 n.4 (11th Cir. 

1987), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3273 (1990); Ray E. Friedman & Co. 

v. Jenkins, 738 F.2d 251, 254 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Lusby v. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6153 Document: 010110083616 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 2 
- ' 

T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 796 F.2d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir.)(harmless 

error analysis applies in faulty jury instruction cases), cert. 

denied, 479 U.S. 884 (1986). While there was evidence to support 

the jury's verdict for plaintiffs, there was also evidence to 

support defendant. Because, after reviewing the record, we cannot 

say the jury would have reached the same verdict if it had been 

properly instructed, we conclude the instruction error was not 

harmless. See Lusby, 796 F.2d at 1310. Accordingly, this action 

must be retried with an instruction properly placing the burden of 

proof on plaintiffs. 

We have reviewed defendant's other arguments on appeal that 

(1) possession under a contract could be a defense to plaintiffs' 

allegation of conversion; (2) plaintiffs ratified a contract made 

by their agent Dudley Anderson; (3) voluntary payment by 

plaintiffs could be a defense to conversion; (4) the district 

court mischaracterized defendant's contentions in an instruction; 

and (5) the district court made prejudicial comments to the jury 

during trial and in the jury instructions. We conclude these 

arguments are without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the cause is 

REMANDED for a new jury trial with proper instruction on the 

burden of proof. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6153 Document: 010110083616 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 3