1 At it s incep t ion, this sui t inv olve d Charl

es Ma c S pe llman, Jr . , Me liss a S pe llman, T r av is Star Co rp or at ion, Melan

ie Stanford, Frederick St anf ord , and Nor west Ban

k. Trav i s Star’ s su

m mary jud gme nt ag ain st St an fo r d w as se ve r ed an d is t he su bje ct o f t his a pp ea l. 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00700-CV Melanie Sta nford, Appellant

v. Travis Star

Corpor ation, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 98- 13727, H ONORABLE M ARGAR ET A. COOP

ER, JUD GE PR

ESIDING

Me lan ie Stanford appeal s f rom the di strict court ’s grant of a s umm ary j ud gme nt in f av orof T ra vis St ar Co rp or at ion in its c onve rsio n act ion ag ainst her . We will rever se t he judg ment and reman

d for further pr oceedings. Stanf ordwa s e mplo yed wit h T ra vis S t ar Co rp o ra t io n fr om D ec em b er 19 95 to Novem ber 19 96 . T r av is Star opera

ted a m obi l e-home park. Charles Mac Spellm an, Jr. , Tr avis Star’s pr es i den t, cl ai med th at S t anfo rd fo rg ed c heck s, a nd eit her dep os ited t hem into her per so nal bank acc ou nt or cas he d t hem. I n Dec ember 1 996 Tr avis St ar sue d S t anfo rd for co nver sion. 1 Stanf ord responded

to th e m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t cl ai m i n g th at S pe llman inst ruc t ed he rt o de po sit checks into her per so na l account and pay compan y e xpenses f rom that account; all

egedl y as an2

attempt by

Spell ma n to defraud his credi

to rs. Eac h sid e o ffe red documen tary evi dence as well as aff ida vi ts in support o f the m

ot ion f or summ ary judgme

nt and response. Su mmary judgment is properl y gran ted onl y wh en the m ovan t estab l i shes that there areno g enuine issu es o f mate rial fact t o be dec ided a nd t hat t he movant i s entitled to judgment as a ma tt er of l aw. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt . Co ., 690 S. W.2 d 54 6, 548 -4 9 ( Te x. 1 985 ). In r eviewing t he gr ant o f a

sum mary judg ment, we view t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he no n-mo vant and ma ke ev

ery reas onab l e i

nf eren ce a nd r esol ve al l doubts i n f avor of the nonm

ovan t. Id. The purpo se of s

um mary j udgm en t is to determ

i ne i f there arean y que sti ons of f act to be tri

ed, n ot to try t he cau se by weig hing t he evide nce o r d et er mini ng it s cr edibility or t o t ry t he ca use by af f i da vi t or dep os itio n. Gulbenkian v. Penn , 252 S. W.2d 929 , 93 1 (T ex. 1 952 ); Greenv. Morris , 43 S.W.3d 604, 60 8 (Waco 200 1, no pe t.). Wh en a pl ai nti f f move s f orsu mmar y jud gme nt o n it s o wn c au se o f ac t io n, t he p laint iff m us t prov e i

t i s e n ti tl ed to s um mar y j udgm en t b y estab l i sh i n g e ach el em en t of i ts cl ai m as a m atter of l aw. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 ( Te x. 1 986 ). Acco rd ingly, Tr avis St ar as mo vant had t he bur den t o e st ablish each e lement of i ts cause for conve

rsion. Conv

ersi on is the unauthorize d and wrongf

ul as su m pti on an d e x ercise

of con trol ov er th e p er son

al prope rty o f ano t her , t o t he excl us i on of, or i nc onsi sten t wi th, th e other p erson ’sri ghts . Waisath v. Lack’s Stores, Inc. , 474 S.W.2d 444, 44 6 (T ex. 1 971 ); Pierson v. GFH F in. Servs. Corp. , 8 29 S .W. 2d 3 11, 314 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

1992, no writ). Stanford does not dispute that she exerci sed contro l ove

r the checks at iss ue ; t he dis pu t e is wh ethe r t hat co ntro l was unautho rized and inconsistent w ith Travis St ar’s rights. As a pr elimina ry mat t er , we mus t de t er mine t he va lue o f t he su mma ry -judgm ent evi dence ot her than the a

ff ida vi ts in tro duced i

n support of the motion f

or summ ary judgme

nt and response.2 In one part of hi s af

fi davi t in s uppo rt of t he motion

f or sum mary judgm ent, Spell ma n cla imed t ha t St an fo r d c o nve r t ed at lea st $4 8, 18 6. 83 ( t he amo un t o f t he ch ec ks ) ; in another par t he aske d f or $ 45 ,60 6.3 2 i

n da mag es . J udgm en t wa s f or th e $ 45 ,60 6.3 2 a

moun t. 3 The appendix to St anford’s rep l y br i ef con tai ns a c opy of Spe l l man ’s plea of no cont est to “securi

ng execution of docum

ent by deception.” T r av is Star fi le d a m ot ion to strike that documen t. Because of our disposi tion of the caus e, we dis

mi ss the m ot ion to strike. 3 Other than Sp ell

man’s affid av it , T r av is Star’s summ ary-j udgme

nt evi dence cons is

ted of a lis t o f n in eteen chec

ks, with thei

r to tal am ount li sted as $48,186.83. 2 Ind ividual exhibits s how ing copies of the l is ted nin eteen chec

ks, as well

as ot her checks d epo sited in Stanfor d’s acc ount, were off ered. Am ong these che cks are Travi s Star checks pay abl e to S tanford and si

gned b y D el ma Davi la , T r av is Star’s bookkeeper. Tr avi s Star nev er expl ic itl y e xpl ai ns or traces what these i ndi vi dual ex h i b i ts are s uppos ed to sho w o t her t han, in its br ief on ap pea l, ass er t ingthat t he copi es sh ow w here each check was

deposited or cashed. However, Stan ford do es n ot dis pute tha t the ch ecks were deposited in her ac cou nt or ca sh ed —the di spute d e l em

en t of conv ersi on i s wh ethe r he r actions were wr o ng ful. No expl anati on is off ered as to how a copy of a ch eck payable t o S t anfo rd and s igned by t he bus iness’s bo ok kee per t hat was dep os ited in St anfo rd ’s ac co unt shows Stanf ord co nve rted t he check, ot her t han by Spe llm an’s a ffi davit so st at ing. T he evide nce d id no t include a ny tes t imony, by aff ida vi t o r deposition, ex

pli ci tly showi ng an y s ign atures were forged by

Stanford. St anfo rd’s affidavit in su ppo rt of he r r esp ons e sw ear s t hat she w as d epo siting t he checks at S pellm an’s instr uct ion and paid busi ness expenses from h

er perso nal

account . St anf

ord also su bm itted an affidavit fro m Davila, t he bo ok kee per . D avila had first sup po rt ed S pellman in hi s f orgery alle gations agai

nst Stanford, then l

ater chang ed he r mind and supported St anf ord. 3 St anford’s sum mary j udgm en t evi den ce, s uch as re cei pts f or certai n a mounts p aid, suf

f ersproblem

s si mi la rto T r av is St ar ’s . We ne ed no t dis cu ss t he se pr o ble ms in d et ail , however. Appl yi ng the gen

eral4

prin ci ple s governi

ng sum ma ry j udgme nt, revi ewi

ng the evidence in the light most favo ra ble to t he nonmo vant and w itho ut making cr edibility judgment s o r w eighing t he evi dence, Travis Star has not dem onstra ted i t is en titl ed to j udgm

en t as a m atter of l aw. See Nixon , 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Concludi ng that a genuine i ssue of material fact exi sts, we reverse the d i strict-court judgm ent and remand the cause for further pro ceedings.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bouss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Reversed a

nd Rem anded File d: October 4, 2001 Do No t Publis

h