## Facts

- Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials observed Lester and Conrad Gissel (and others) harvesting wild rice on land jointly owned by the State of Idaho and the U.S. Forest Service.
- The county prosecutor obtained a warrant to search Lester Gissel’s home; officers found and seized about 180 bags of wild rice (about 50 pounds per bag).
- The harvesters were charged and convicted of trespass; after post-trial proceedings and an appellate remand, the prosecutor later dismissed the criminal charges.
- Before the criminal trial, the parties stipulated that the rice would not be introduced as evidence and could be sold to prevent spoilage, with proceeds preserved.
- The rice was sold; the record reflected inconsistent sale-price figures, but in the civil case the parties treated the rice as having a stipulated value of $21,000.
- The Gissels filed a Notice of Claim against the State seeking the rice or the sale proceeds; the State denied liability.
- The Gissels filed a civil complaint alleging negligent seizure and disposal of the rice and failure to account for the sale proceeds.
- After a bench trial, the district court found a factual basis to treat the harvest as coming 50% from state land and 50% from Forest Service land.
- The district court concluded the State could keep the portion attributable to rice harvested on state land, but that the State unlawfully converted the portion attributable to rice harvested on Forest Service land.
- The district court entered judgment for the Gissels for $10,500 (one-half of $21,000), and the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding of a factual basis for a 50/50 division of the wild rice (and proceeds) between state-owned land and U.S. Forest Service land.
2. Whether the district court erred in awarding the Gissels $10,500 in proceeds attributable to rice harvested on Forest Service land on a conversion theory, including whether the State proved it was acting as an agent for the Forest Service.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the $10,500 judgment for the Gissels.
- The Court held that substantial evidence supported the district court’s 50/50 allocation of the rice/proceeds between the state-owned and Forest Service-owned portions of the harvest area.
- The Court agreed that the State wrongfully exercised dominion over the portion of the proceeds tied to Forest Service land by refusing to account for or return that portion, supporting a conversion recovery.
- The Court rejected the State’s claim that it held the Forest Service share as the Forest Service’s agent; the State did not prove that the Forest Service conferred authority on the State to act for it.
- A dissent was filed by Justice Bakes.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion is a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal property in denial of, or inconsistent with, the other’s rights, including conduct that deprives the person of possession permanently or for an indefinite time.
- On review of a bench trial, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence; findings will be upheld if supported by substantial, competent evidence.
- Prior possession can support recovery in conversion against a defendant who has no better right to the property; a defendant generally may not defeat a possessor’s claim by pointing to a third party’s title (jus tertii) unless the defendant shows authority to act for the true owner.
- Agency is a fiduciary relationship arising when a principal confers authority on an agent to act on the principal’s behalf; authority may be actual, implied, or apparent.
- The party asserting an agency relationship bears the burden of proof; when agency is disputed, it is a fact question for the trier of fact.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s award of $10,500 to the Gissels, holding that substantial evidence supported a 50/50 allocation of the wild rice proceeds between state and federal land and that the State converted the portion attributable to Forest Service land by refusing to account for it, while failing to prove it was authorized to retain that share as the Forest Service’s agent.


Gissel v. State, 727 P.2d 1153 (1986)