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.
Title: Understanding Kansas Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion Keywords: Kansas instruction, jury, demand for possession, refusal of possession, prima facie evidence, conversion Introduction: The Kansas instruction to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial legal concept in the state's legal system. This instruction aids in establishing the elements required to prove a claim of conversion. Let's explore the details of this instruction and various types associated with it. 1. Kansas Jury Instruction No. 1215: Kansas Jury Instruction No. 1215 outlines the general principle stating that a demand for possession of property by the rightful owner or an authorized party, followed by the defendant's refusal to return it, can serve as prima facie evidence of conversion. This instruction helps guide juries when assessing conversion claims. 2. Requirements to establish conversion: — To claim conversion based on the demand for and refusal of possession, the plaintiff must prove that they have the right to possess the property, either as an owner or authorized party. — Moreover, the plaintiff must establish that they demanded the property's return from the defendant, and the defendant refused to comply with the demand. — It is important to note that the demand for possession does not necessitate a formal, written demand. A clear verbal or written request is adequate, demonstrating the plaintiff's intent to regain possession. 3. How refusal of possession becomes prima facie evidence of conversion: — Prima facie evidence refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless rebutted or contradicted. — By refusing to return the property upon a rightful demand, the defendant's actions indicate their intentional interference with the plaintiff's possessor rights, giving rise to an inference of conversion. — The instruction helps the jury understand that the refusal of possession alone does not conclude the case but serves as significant evidence in favor of the plaintiff's conversion claim. 4. Rebutting the prima facie evidence: — While the refusal of possession creates a presumption of conversion, the defendant has the opportunity to present evidence rebutting this presumption. — The defendant may argue that they had a rightful claim to the property, that the demand was invalid, or provide evidence that they returned the property at a later time. — The jury must carefully consider the defendant's rebuttal evidence and determine if it overcomes the plaintiff's initial prima facie evidence. Conclusion: Kansas instruction to the jury that the demand for and refusal of possession is prima facie evidence of conversion informs jurors of the legal principle that refusal to return properly requested goods can lead to a presumption of conversion. It is important for the jury to examine all evidence presented and make an informed determination of whether the conversion claim has been proven. Legal professionals must familiarize themselves with these instructions to better understand the nuances involved in proving conversion claims under Kansas law.Title: Understanding Kansas Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion Keywords: Kansas instruction, jury, demand for possession, refusal of possession, prima facie evidence, conversion Introduction: The Kansas instruction to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prima facie evidence of conversion is a crucial legal concept in the state's legal system. This instruction aids in establishing the elements required to prove a claim of conversion. Let's explore the details of this instruction and various types associated with it. 1. Kansas Jury Instruction No. 1215: Kansas Jury Instruction No. 1215 outlines the general principle stating that a demand for possession of property by the rightful owner or an authorized party, followed by the defendant's refusal to return it, can serve as prima facie evidence of conversion. This instruction helps guide juries when assessing conversion claims. 2. Requirements to establish conversion: — To claim conversion based on the demand for and refusal of possession, the plaintiff must prove that they have the right to possess the property, either as an owner or authorized party. — Moreover, the plaintiff must establish that they demanded the property's return from the defendant, and the defendant refused to comply with the demand. — It is important to note that the demand for possession does not necessitate a formal, written demand. A clear verbal or written request is adequate, demonstrating the plaintiff's intent to regain possession. 3. How refusal of possession becomes prima facie evidence of conversion: — Prima facie evidence refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless rebutted or contradicted. — By refusing to return the property upon a rightful demand, the defendant's actions indicate their intentional interference with the plaintiff's possessor rights, giving rise to an inference of conversion. — The instruction helps the jury understand that the refusal of possession alone does not conclude the case but serves as significant evidence in favor of the plaintiff's conversion claim. 4. Rebutting the prima facie evidence: — While the refusal of possession creates a presumption of conversion, the defendant has the opportunity to present evidence rebutting this presumption. — The defendant may argue that they had a rightful claim to the property, that the demand was invalid, or provide evidence that they returned the property at a later time. — The jury must carefully consider the defendant's rebuttal evidence and determine if it overcomes the plaintiff's initial prima facie evidence. Conclusion: Kansas instruction to the jury that the demand for and refusal of possession is prima facie evidence of conversion informs jurors of the legal principle that refusal to return properly requested goods can lead to a presumption of conversion. It is important for the jury to examine all evidence presented and make an informed determination of whether the conversion claim has been proven. Legal professionals must familiarize themselves with these instructions to better understand the nuances involved in proving conversion claims under Kansas law.
