A trespass to personal property is t he use of someone's property without person. A conversion occurs when personal property is taken by a defendant and kept from its true owner without permission of the owner. Conversion is the civil side of the crime of theft. Demand and refusal are necessary for the maintenance of an action for conversion in all cases in which defendant was rightfully in possession.
West Virginia Instruction to Jury: Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion West Virginia law recognizes the concept of conversion, which refers to the wrongful exercise of dominion or control over another person's property that interferes with their right to possess it. In cases where a plaintiff alleges conversion, one important instruction that the jury may receive is regarding the evidentiary weight of a demand for possession and its subsequent refusal. The instruction establishes that when a plaintiff demands return of their property and the defendant refuses to comply, this act alone is considered prima facie evidence of conversion. "Prima facie" signifies that such evidence, if contradicted or unexplained, is sufficient to establish the defendant's conversion. By including this instruction, the court emphasizes the significance of a demand for possession and refusal as strong proof of conversion. It places the burden on the defendant to provide a valid explanation or evidence contradicting the prima facie case to sway the jury's decision. Different variations of the West Virginia Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prima Facie Evidence of Conversion may include: 1. Direct and Unchallenged Demand: This instruction pertains to cases where the plaintiff can show clear evidence of a demand made directly to the defendant for the return of the property. The instruction highlights that if the demand is unchallenged by the defendant and possession is still not granted, a prima facie case of conversion is established. 2. Demand through an Authorized Representative: In situations where the plaintiff makes the demand for possession through an authorized agent or representative, this variation of the instruction clarifies that a refusal by the defendant, even after a proper demand was made, constitutes prima facie evidence of conversion. 3. Challenged Demand and Reasonable Explanation: This instruction applies when the defendant challenges either the existence of the demand or the manner in which it was made. It further clarifies that if the plaintiff can provide evidence of a valid demand and the defendant fails to provide a reasonable explanation for their refusal to return the property, a prima facie case of conversion is established. 4. Additional Factors to Consider: In certain cases, the court may provide an expanded instruction that allows the jury to consider additional factors alongside the demand for and refusal of possession. These factors may include the nature of the property, its value, the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's rights in the property, and any other relevant circumstances that may help determine whether conversion occurred. These various instructions cater to different scenarios and help guide the jury's decision-making process when determining whether the defendant's demand for and refusal of possession constitutes prima facie evidence of conversion in accordance with West Virginia law.
