## Facts

- During the October 7, 2001 San Francisco Giants game, Barry Bonds hit his 73rd home run ball into a standing-room-only area near right field.
- Alex Popov positioned himself to catch the ball; the ball entered the upper webbing of his glove and Popov stopped its trajectory.
- Immediately after initial contact, a crowd surged; Popov was grabbed, hit, and knocked down, and the ball came loose during the melee.
- Patrick Hayashi, also knocked down but not involved in any assault, saw the loose ball on the ground, picked it up, and put it in his pocket.
- Popov demanded the ball; Hayashi refused, asserting lawful possession.
- Popov sued for conversion, claiming ownership upon the ball’s entry into his glove.

## Issues

1. What degree of control constitutes possession of an abandoned baseball hit into stadium stands?
2. Whether a person who makes significant but incomplete steps toward possession, interrupted by unlawful third-party acts, acquires a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest supporting conversion.
3. How to allocate rights when one innocent party has a pre-possessory interest and another innocent party has actual physical possession.

## Decision

- The court held Popov did not obtain full possession because he failed to retain control of the ball after initial contact.
- The court held Popov obtained a pre-possessory interest because he took significant steps toward possession and was prevented from completing the catch by unlawful acts of others.
- The court held Hayashi acquired actual possession lawfully and committed no wrongful act in obtaining the ball.
- Because both parties had legally recognized, competing claims of equal quality, the court ordered the ball sold and the proceeds divided equally.

## Legal Principles

- Abandoned personal property is owned by the first person to possess it; for a baseball in the stands, possession requires control beyond momentary contact.
- A baseball is not “caught” for ownership purposes unless the claimant retains control after incidental contact reasonably expected in the stands.
- When unlawful third-party interference prevents completion of possession after significant steps toward control, the interrupted claimant obtains a pre-possessory interest—a qualified right to possession that can support conversion.
- Where two innocent parties hold competing, legally protected interests and neither has clearly superior title, equity may require a shared ownership remedy, including sale and equal division of proceeds.

## Conclusion

The court refused to let mob violence determine ownership of a valuable piece of abandoned property, recognized a qualified pre-possessory interest for the interrupted would-be catcher, and equitably split the value between the interrupted claimant and the innocent possessor.


Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, 2002 WL 31833731 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002)