law-conversion
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.
08-0572
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 germane
08-0637
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.