Opinion ID: 1280738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: count two conversion

Text: Count two is a claim for conversion. The district court ruled that this count was barred by the statute of limitations. Here, it is important to look at the chronology of events: Conversion allegedly occurred  January 21, 1975 Plaintiffs' complaint filed  September 7, 1977 Simplot's answer filed  January 17, 1978 ATI's cross-claim filed  December 21, 1979 Simplot's answer to cross-claim filed  December 19, 1983 Amended cross-claim filed  August 28, 1984 Amended answer to cross-claim filed  January 27, 1987 A cause of action for conversion accrues as soon as the property is wrongfully taken or retained. Davidson v. Davidson, 68 Idaho 58, 63, 188 P.2d 329, 334 (1947); Havird v. Lung, 19 Idaho 790, 115 P. 930 (1911). The parties agree that the conversion took place on January 21, 1975. The applicable statute of limitations for conversions is three years. I.C. § 5-218. Thus, the cut off date for this claim was January 21, 1978. ATI's cross-claim was not filed until December of 1979, almost five years after the date of the alleged conversion. The district court ruled that count two was barred by the statute of limitations. We agree. ATI asserts that the doctrine of relation back under I.R.C.P. 15(c) saves this claim from being time barred because their amended cross-claim should relate back to Simplot's answer in the original action. The crucial language in the rule provides: Rule 15(c). Relation back of amendments.  Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading... . Under this rule, it is correct that ATI's amended cross-claim could relate back to their original cross-claim, but it may not, as they contend, relate back to Simplot's answer to the plaintiff farmers' complaint. Obviously, relation back to Simplot's answer is more attractive to ATI because it would save this claim from preclusion by the statute of limitations cut-off with four days to spare, whereas relation back to the original cross-claim will not save the conversion action from the statute of limitations. Rule 15(c) does not allow one party's pleading to relate back to a different party's pleadings. We are unable to find any Idaho cases that address this precise issue. However, other courts have considered this matter and have ruled likewise. In United States for Bros. Builders Supply v. Old World Artisans, 702 F. Supp. 1561 (N.D.Ga. 1988), the court stated: In determining whether a cross-claim may relate back to the date of the original complaint, the federal courts distinguish between those wherein the defendant seeks to reduce the amount a plaintiff can recover, such as by recoupment, contribution, or indemnity, and those wherein the defendant is seeking affirmative relief. Where the claim of the defendant is an affirmative independent cause of action not in the nature of a defensive claim, the defendant must comply with the applicable statute of limitations.       As noted by the court in Applebaum, most of the decisions involving this rule have examined counterclaims rather than cross-claims. Nevertheless, as held in Ash v. United States, 363 F. Supp. 345, 346 (D.Neb. 1973), the rationale for the rule has even stronger force with regard to cross-claims.... Id. 702 F. Supp. at 1569 (citations omitted). See also Applebaum v. Ceres Land Co., 546 F. Supp. 17 (D.Minn. 1981); Ash v. United States, 363 F. Supp. 345 (1973). Because Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) is based on the federal rule, we find this argument persuasive. ATI's cross-claim against Simplot is not asserted as a defense, but as an independent cause of action. ATI seeks damages from Simplot because Simplot willfully and maliciously and intentionally converted the grain. An independent cause of action must comply with the statute of limitations, therefore, the doctrine of relation back does not save count two; it is time barred.