## Facts

- The State acquired the real property by tax deed in 1931 for delinquent taxes.
- In 1935, Marcus Zaslow entered possession after foreclosing a street assessment bond and later leased the same property from the State.
- The State sold the property at a tax sale on November 19, 1943, to Helene Kroenert; the State cancelled Zaslow’s lease effective that date and directed him to deal with the purchaser.
- Despite notice of cancellation, Zaslow continued to occupy and manage the premises, including receiving rent under a sublease.
- A dispute over ownership followed; Kroenert and her agent, Chapman, took possession by changing locks and posting warnings.
- Kroenert’s agent removed Zaslow’s furniture and placed it in storage after notifying Zaslow; Zaslow was told how and when to retrieve the items, with storage costs to follow if not timely claimed.
- Zaslow sued for trespass to real property (entry and ouster) and conversion of the furniture; the trial court awarded damages that included the full value of the furniture.
- Defendants appealed to the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Kroenert’s self-help entry and ouster of Zaslow from the premises was wrongful and actionable as trespass given the parties’ respective interests in the real property.
2. Whether removing Zaslow’s furniture and placing it in storage constituted conversion, warranting damages equal to the furniture’s full value.

## Decision

- The court held Kroenert acquired valid title by tax deed and, upon vesting of that title, Kroenert and Zaslow stood as tenants in common.
- The court affirmed liability and appropriate damages for wrongful ouster/trespass because a cotenant may not dispossess another cotenant by force or self-help inconsistent with the other’s possessory rights.
- The court reversed the conversion award, holding the evidence did not show conversion of the furniture.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion requires conduct showing an intent to exercise ownership or control over chattels inconsistent with the owner’s rights, or an intent to prevent the owner from taking possession.
- Taking possession of a building and locking it, without more, does not by itself establish conversion of personal property located inside.
- A refusal, after demand, to allow the owner to remove chattels can support a finding of conversion; absent a demand and refusal, custodial handling that recognizes the owner’s title generally does not.
- Even where a defendant is liable for wrongful entry or ouster regarding real property, conversion damages (full value of goods) require a serious interference with dominion over the personal property.

## Conclusion

The court treated Kroenert’s forcible exclusion of Zaslow as a wrongful ouster supporting trespass damages, but rejected conversion liability because the defendants’ handling of the furniture amounted to custodial storage without dominion inconsistent with Zaslow’s ownership and without a demand and refusal to return the property.


Zaslow v. Kroenert, 29 Cal. 2d 541, 176 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1946)