Opinion ID: 1766361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the furniture and office equipment

Text: Appellant next contests the jury's finding that it converted respondent's office furniture and equipment. Respondent had borrowed money to furnish the office which totalled $174,030 at the time of trial. Appellant was to purchase respondent's furniture, equipment and other agency assets under the proposed settlement plan discussed during the May 29 negotiations. Pursuant to those negotiations, and in anticipation of a settlement agreement, appellant, on June 1, assumed possession of the agency with respondent's knowledge. On June 2, appellant sent respondent the final written settlement agreement. Respondent would not sign the agreement because it contained the release provision. Appellant would not delete the provision and negotiations between the parties broke off. On June 26, William Curtis, for appellant, wrote the following to respondent's attorney Mr. Sildon: Mutual Benefit has assumed the lease at One Pershing Square, but there is furniture and equipment on the premises which belong to Mr. Emerick. We would appreciate his suggestions concerning the disposition of this property. We will state that if Mr. Emerick wishes to remove the said furniture and equipment from the premises, Mutual Benefit will be willing to accommodate him and cooperate with him. On the other hand, if he prefers to leave the property in place pending future negotiations with the new General Agent, that will be agreeable. However, if he prefers instead to negotiate immediately with Mutual Benefit for a sale, an attempt will be made to arrive at a mutually agreeable price. Respondent did not respond to appellant's request for instructions. Appellant wrote respondent again on September 11, 1981: What we are now asking is simply for Mr. Emerick to confirm to Mutual Benefit which furniture and equipment, if any, belongs to the agents. With respect to the remainder of the furniture and equipment, Mutual Benefit continues to stand ready, willing and able to deliver that furniture in accordance with Mr. Emerick's instructions. Mutual Benefit does not desire to retain Mr. Emerick's furniture and equipment on its leased premises. Respondent did not respond to the correspondence, did not demand appellant give up the items and did not attempt to retrieve the furniture and equipment. Respondent now claims the property was converted. Conversion may be proved three ways. Respondent can show either (1) a tortious taking, (2) a use or appropriation by appellant indicating a claim of right in opposition to the owner, or (3) a refusal to give up possession on demand. Houston v. Columbia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 569 S.W. 2d 211, 214 (Mo.App.1978); Lacks v. R. Rowland & Co., Inc., 718 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Mo.App.1986). The third method is appropriate when the defendant rightfully assumes possession of the property but wrongfully retains possession. Glass v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 450 S.W.2d 217 (Mo.App.1970); Nicklas v. Lincoln Liberty Life Ins. Co., 518 S.W.2d 106, 112-13 (Mo. App.1974). Where there has been no wrongful taking or disposal of the goods and the defendant has merely come rightfully into possession and then refused to surrender them, demand and refusal are necessary to the existence of the tort. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 15, p. 99 (5th ed. 1984). Respondent cannot expect to prevail on a claim of conversion when his own conduct fostered the dispossession. Appellant did not convert respondent's furniture and equipment. There was no tortious taking because appellant's initial possession of the property was authorized. Hardesty v. Mr. Cribbin's Old House, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Mo.App.1984). The second method of proving conversion is also unavailable to respondent because there was no use or appropriation in opposition to respondent's rights. Appellant's letters to respondent vitiate respondent's claim that appellant acted in a way to deprive respondent of ownership. The third method of proving conversion, appropriate when the initial possession is authorized, is also inapplicable in this case because respondent never demanded that appellant give up the property. In fact, appellant never indicated any unwillingness to surrender possession. The letters show appellant did all it could to accommodate respondent with regard to the furniture and equipment. The furniture should not have been treated as converted.