The elements of conversion are: (1) the plaintiff owned, had legal possession of, or was
entitled to possession of the property; (2) the defendant assumed and exercised dominion
and control over the property in an unlawful and unauthorized manner, to the exclusion of and
inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights; and (3) the defendant refused the plaintiff's demand for
the return of the property. Huffmeyer v. Mann, 49 S.W.3d 554, 558 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
2001, no pet.).
Crockett does not claim that it did not cash the checks in question, nor does it claim other available
defenses to a conversion claim, such as qualified good-faith refusal or a superior title or right to the
funds. See Stein v. Mauricio, 580 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1979, no writ); Enduro Oil
Co. v. Parish & Ellison, 834 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied).
Rather, the claims arise from distinct conduct at different times and under very different
circumstances. The two claims are not related.
ALLAN A. CROCKETT AND GULF COAST CONTRACTORS, INC. v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; from Cameron County; 13th district (13‑07‑00640‑CV, 257 SW3d 412, 06‑05‑08,
pet denied Dec 2008)
By a plea to the jurisdiction, TxDOT urged that the counterclaim should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, asserting that it retained its sovereign immunity because Crockett's counterclaim was not
NEW WAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LEGACY BANK OF TEXAS; from Collin County; 8th district
(08-07-00046-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-26-08) (no conversion of checks)
Tex.Bus.&Com.Code Ann. § 3.420(a).
Having found the checks to be payable to either Maxim or New Wave, Maxim was entitled to enforce
the instruments. Legacy did not take the instruments from a person not entitled to enforce the
instrument, nor did Legacy make payment on an instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the
instrument or receive payment. Legacy did not convert the checks under Section 3.420 of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code. Issue Three is overruled. Having overruled all of Appellant's issues,
we affirm the trial court's ruling.