Opinion ID: 1280596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Conversion Claim

Text: In addition to claiming that, because of the civil conspiracy, Sue Politino was vicariously responsible for the breaches of fiduciary duty committed by Rodney Politino, Azzon, Inc., and John P. and Brenda See claim that Sue Politino, both actively and vicariously as a co-conspirator with Rodney Politino, wrongfully converted and took possession of various assets owned by Azzon, Inc. As previously stated, this Court believes that the documents filed fail to demonstrate a civil conspiracy. The remaining question in the present allegation is, therefore, whether there is a material question of fact as to whether Sue Politino personally converted the property in question. This Court has indicated that any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over property of another, and in denial of his rights, or inconsistent therewith, may be treated as conversion. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 184 W.Va. 82, 399 S.E.2d 664 (1990). Information concerning the alleged conversion in the present case is contained in the deposition of John P. See taken on September 9, 1999. In that deposition, Mr. See described the equipment in question as being a generator, a fuel truck, a lowboy trailer, and a box trailer. The questioning of Mr. See proceeded as follows: Q. Were thoseWere those pieces of property, were they all titled in Azzon's name? A. [MR. SEE] I know the fuel truck was. Q. Just tell me in your own words what happened to them and how did that come about that Azzon lost them and the Politino's got them. A. Well, in 1996, I guess in January 1996, we were more or less evicted from Azzon. When I say we, the shop area that we had leased, for nonpayment of lease, so-to-speak, because, as I indicated, we didn't have the cash flow to do that. Q. Who was your landlord? A. Triple B Equipment, I believe it was. Q. Did either you or Mr. Politino have any connection with that company? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So you all were evicted from the premises in January of `96, and then what happened? A. Well, as far as from what I understand, Sue Politino took over the Q. You can go ahead A. rent, so-to-speak. Q. and just tell me what your understanding is. A. That's my understanding. Q. Your understanding is she took over what? A. The lease of that. Q. Those premises? A. Right. And this is where the equipment was located, so-to-speak. Q. So the equipment just stayed there? A. Yes, sir. Q. And thereafter, you haven't seen it since then. A. No, sir. Q. Is that what you're saying? A. Yes, sir. Q. And so it's your understanding and belief and assumption that Sue Politino or her company or Rodney or some combination of them had control over the equipment and that they must have used the equipment after that. A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know for a fact whether or not they actually used the equipment, or could it have just sat there for years? A. I don't know for a fact, no. Well, like I said, I do know to a degree, but I can't say. Q. What? A. I can't say definitely. Q. Well, do you have itLet me ask it this way. Do you have any reason to believe that they actually used or employed any of this equipment? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why do you believe that they did? A. Well, because the status of the lowboy trailer that Azzon, Inc., was purchasing fromJohn Deere? MR. NELSON: Yeah, I think that's right. THE WITNESS:John Deere. Mr. Politino had that in his control and he was, as far as I know, utilizing the trailer to haul Sue's Reclamation's equipment around to different jobs. The lowboy was repossessed by John Deere, and they had problems locating where it was at. BY MR. COLLIAS: Q. So it's your understanding that the lowboy was repossessed by John Deere then? A. Yes, sir. The testimony of Mr. See proceeded as follows: Q. Now, these items that we've talked about just to clarify, the Mack truck and the generator and the fuel truck and the lowboy and the box trailer, those all belong to Azzon? A. Corporation, yes, sir. Q. Right. Okay. Is there any reason that, when Azzon was evicted, that Azzon couldn't have taken all these vehicles and this property and all and taken it and moved it off the premises? I assume your landlord wanted it off the premises? A. Uh-huh. He demanded we take it off the premises. Q. Why didn't Azzon do that? A. Why didn't Azzon do that? How can I say that? I don't really know why we didn't do it, to be honest with you. I should have had them buy it. The deposition of Rodney Politino indicates that on a couple of occasions, Sue's Reclamation & Construction, Inc., used the lowboy trailer and that it was ultimately repossessed by a lender because of Azzon, Inc.'s, default on a loan after Mr. See, according to his own testimony, had tried to arrange for Rodney Politino, or Sue's Reclamation & Construction, Inc., to assume the loan. The circuit court concluded that this evidence showed that Azzon, Inc., abandoned the equipment in question when it was evicted from the leased premises. This is borne out by the evidence. Although there is some suggestion Sue's Reclamation & Construction, Inc. may have used the lowboy trailer on a couple of occasions, in this Court's opinion, there is no evidence that Sue Politino personally assumed control over, or ever personally exercised dominion over the property in question. Even if the circuit court improperly found that the property was abandoned, there is no evidence that Sue Politino committed an act which would amount to conversion. C.