Opinion ID: 2537326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Irrigation Tubes

Text: [¶ 18] Wagner also challenges the propriety of summary judgment on his conversion claim concerning the irrigation tubes. We have defined conversion as any distinct act of dominion wrongfully executed over one's property in denial of his right or inconsistent therewith. Johnson v. Reiger, 2004 WY 83, ¶ 27, 93 P.3d 992, 999 (Wyo. 2004). In essence, [c]onversion occurs when a person treats another's property as his own, denying the true owner the benefits and rights of ownership. Id. (quoting Marchant v. Cook, 967 P.2d 551, 556 (Wyo. 1998)). In order to establish a cause of action in conversion, a plaintiff must show: (1) he had legal title to the converted property; (2) he either had possession of the property or the right to possess it at the time of the conversion; (3) the defendant exercised dominion over the property in a manner which denied the plaintiff his rights to use and enjoy the property; (4) in those cases where the defendant[] lawfully, or at least without fault, obtained possession of the property, the plaintiff made some demand for the property's return which the defendant refused; and (5) the plaintiff has suffered damage by the loss of the property. Johnson, ¶ 27, 93 P.3d at 999-1000; Marchant, 967 P.2d at 556. [¶ 19] Applying the elements necessary to establish a claim for conversion, we conclude summary judgment was appropriately granted to the Reuters. We find dispositive the lack of any proof as to element four. The undisputed facts reveal that Wagner left the irrigation tubes on the farm after the contractual deadline for removal of his personal property. Approximately two and one-half months later, the Reuters used some of the tubes because they believed Wagner no longer wanted them. The undisputed facts show that upon being contacted by Wagner, the Reuters never refused to return the tubes. Indeed, Wagner acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the Reuters immediately surrendered the irrigation tubes upon his demand, and that he contacted Smet that same day to remove the tubes from the Reuters' property. Wagner also acknowledged that Smet picked up the tubes the same day as requested. Smet's affidavit confirmed he took possession of the irrigation tubes the same day Wagner contacted him. In light of these facts, Wagner's conversion claims fails as a matter of law.