## Facts

- A private hangar and an underground jet-fuel tank at McNary Field were owned by Praegitzer.
- Kasper purchased several thousand gallons of jet fuel and placed it in the underground tank without Praegitzer’s knowledge and without any agreement transferring ownership of the fuel.
- Praegitzer later sold the hangar and tank to Curtright.
- After learning of the sale, Kasper attempted to remove the fuel; Curtright refused, asserting that the fuel was included in his purchase.
- Praegitzer sued Kasper for trespass based on unauthorized use of the hangar.
- Kasper counterclaimed against Praegitzer for conversion of the fuel and brought a third-party conversion claim against Curtright.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Praegitzer and Curtright on Kasper’s conversion claims, denied Kasper’s summary-judgment motion, and dismissed the remaining trespass, conversion, indemnity, and contract claims.
- Kasper appealed, challenging the summary-judgment rulings on his conversion claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Curtright acquired title to the stored jet fuel when he purchased the hangar and tank from Praegitzer.
2. Whether Praegitzer had “voidable title” or other power under ORS 72.4030 (UCC § 2-403) to transfer good title in the fuel to Curtright.
3. Whether Curtright’s refusal to allow Kasper to remove the fuel constituted conversion because Kasper retained superior title and right to possession.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It reversed the judgment on Kasper’s third-party conversion claim against Curtright and held Kasper was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim.
- It otherwise affirmed the trial court’s judgment, including the disposition of Kasper’s conversion counterclaim against Praegitzer.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion requires (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession and (2) the defendant’s wrongful exercise of dominion or control inconsistent with that right.
- Under ORS 72.4030 (UCC § 2-403), a transferee generally receives only the title the transferor has or has power to transfer.
- “Voidable title” sufficient to pass good title to a good-faith purchaser for value requires a voluntary transfer by the true owner in circumstances contemplating a transfer of ownership; unauthorized storage of goods on another’s property does not confer voidable title on the property owner.
- The UCC entrustment rule applies only when goods are entrusted to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind; a private hangar owner who is not a jet-fuel merchant lacks entrustment power to transfer the owner’s rights.
- A buyer of a hangar and tank does not automatically acquire title to personal property stored in the tank absent the seller’s title or statutory power to convey it.

## Conclusion

Kasper’s ownership of the jet fuel was not divested by storing it in Praegitzer’s tank without any transfer of title, and Praegitzer lacked statutory power under ORS 72.4030 to convey the fuel to Curtright; Curtright therefore acquired no title to the fuel, and his refusal to allow Kasper to remove it constituted conversion.


Bergeron v. Aero Sales, Inc., 205 Or. App. 257, 134 P.3d 964 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)