## Facts

- Wesley Henson owned a one-half interest in Discount Industrial Coating, Inc., a business that used a polyurethane spraying machine to apply truck-bed liners.
- The polyurethane machine was clogged, inoperable, and mounted inside an enclosed gooseneck trailer.
- Henson wanted to sell his interest. Allen Reddin told Henson he would buy the machine if he could get it working.
- Reddin purchased replacement items with his own money and installed them on the machine, including a fusion gun and transfer pump (\$2,690.28), a foam kit (\$1,800.00), hoses (\$57.66), and a Y-strainer (\$13.68).
- Reddin offered receipts for the purchases; the receipts were admitted into evidence without objection.
- A day or two after Reddin installed the items, Henson moved the trailer and machine to an undisclosed location before any sale to Reddin occurred.
- Reddin repeatedly called Henson seeking return of his items; Reddin testified that Henson answered only once and refused to return them.
- Henson testified that he did not know Reddin owned any property in the trailer when he moved it and claimed he told Reddin to call and come get the items.
- While the trailer and machine were out of Reddin’s reach, polyurethane resin crystallized inside the machine, ruining the newly installed items.
- Reddin sued Henson for conversion in justice court and obtained a default judgment; Henson appealed to county court for a de novo bench trial.
- After the bench trial, the county court awarded Reddin \$4,561.52 in conversion damages (and additional amounts as provided in the judgment, including prejudgment interest), and Henson appealed to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Henson converted Reddin’s property when Henson moved the trailer and did not return (or disclose the location of) the parts Reddin had purchased and installed.
2. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s damages award of \$4,561.52 for conversion.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment.
- The evidence permitted the factfinder to conclude that Reddin owned the items he bought and installed and that Henson exercised unauthorized dominion and control over them by relocating the trailer, withholding its location, and refusing to return the items after Reddin sought them.
- The evidence supported the damages award because the receipts and testimony showing the recent purchase prices were sufficient proof of the items’ value at the time of conversion.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion is the unauthorized and wrongful exercise of dominion and control over another’s personal property to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with, the owner’s rights.
- A defendant’s good faith or lack of knowledge that the property belongs to another does not defeat conversion if the defendant’s conduct amounts to wrongful control inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- Evidence that a defendant refused to return property after the owner’s request can support a finding that the defendant exercised control inconsistent with the owner’s right to possession.
- Conversion damages are generally measured by the property’s fair market value at the time and place of conversion.
- When property has been recently purchased and there is no evidence of material depreciation (and no competing valuation evidence), the purchase price shown by receipts and testimony may be competent evidence of fair market value.
- On appeal, legal sufficiency review credits evidence a reasonable factfinder could accept and disregards contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not; factual sufficiency review considers all the evidence and reverses only if the finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a conversion judgment where Henson moved and hid the location of a trailer containing Reddin’s newly purchased machine parts and did not return them when requested, holding that Henson’s claimed lack of knowledge did not bar liability and that Reddin’s receipts and testimony about recent purchase prices supported the \$4,561.52 damages award.


Henson v. Reddin, 358 S.W.3d 428 (2012)