Opinion ID: 2373305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jury instructions on conversion

Text: CNB contends that Instruction No. 6 on conversion given by the trial court was defective in that it failed to advise the jury that there must be a finding that CNB intended to exercise dominion over the Goodwins' accounts. CNB also contends that its proposed Instruction No. 6 correctly advised the jury on the law of conversion. Instruction No. 6 given by the trial court stated that the Goodwins had the burden of proving three essential propositions to recover on their conversion cause of action: (1) That they have sustained damages; (2) That City National Bank took or exercised dominion over the checking and savings account in violation of the rights of the owners or the person entitled to possession; and (3) That such taking or exercising of dominion over the checking and savings accounts was a proximate cause of Larry and Sandra Goodwin's damages. Inasmuch as conversion can only result from conduct intended to affect property, CNB is correct that Instruction No. 6 should have advised the jury that the Goodwins had the burden of proving that CNB intended to exercise dominion over their accounts. However, CNB's assertion that its proposed instruction properly stated the law on conversion is incorrect. Granted, the proposed instruction correctly informed the jury that the Goodwins had the burden of proving that CNB exercised dominion or control over their accounts in violation of their rights and intended to do so. Notwithstanding, the proposed instruction erroneously stated that the Goodwins had the burden of proving that they made demand for the return of their funds and that CNB refused to return the funds. Proof of demand and refusal is not necessary to support a conversion action. Westark Production Credit Association v. Shouse, 227 Ark. 1141, 305 S.W.2d 127 (1957); Meyers v. Meyers, 214 Ark. 273, 216 S.W.2d 54 (1948).