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.
Puerto Rico Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion: In Puerto Rico, an instruction to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prime facial evidence of conversion is an important concept in legal proceedings related to property disputes and the tort of conversion. This instruction helps in determining whether a defendant, who has been accused of converting someone else's property, has unlawfully refused to return the possession of the said property after a valid demand has been made. When a plaintiff claims that their property has been wrongfully possessed by the defendant, the jury may be instructed that the mere fact of a demand for the return of the property and the subsequent refusal by the defendant can be considered as strong evidence of conversion. This instruction helps establish a presumption that the defendant's refusal suggests their intention to exercise control and ownership over the property, which is essential in proving the tort of conversion. There are a few different types of Puerto Rico instructions to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prime facial evidence of conversion. These may include: 1. Standard Instruction: In a standard instruction, the jury is informed that if a plaintiff provides evidence of a valid demand for possession of their property and the defendant refuses to comply with the demand, this refusal can be considered as evidence of conversion. However, the jury is also instructed to consider other relevant evidence before making a final determination. 2. Rebut table Presumption Instruction: In certain cases, the jury may be given an instruction that establishes a rebut table presumption. This means that if the plaintiff proves a valid demand for possession and the defendant's refusal, it creates a presumption that conversion has occurred. However, the defendant is given an opportunity to present evidence to rebut this presumption and provide an alternative explanation for their refusal. 3. Alternative Instruction: Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the jury may receive an instruction that places more emphasis on additional factors or conditions that need to be present for the demand and refusal to be considered as prime facial evidence of conversion. For example, the instruction might require the demand to be clear, specific, and unequivocal, and the refusal to be deliberate, knowing, and intentional. In conclusion, the Puerto Rico Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion is a vital legal tool used in determining the occurrence of conversions involving property. It establishes a strong presumption against the defendant based on their refusal to return the property after a valid demand and serves as essential guidance for the jury in reaching a fair and just verdict.Puerto Rico Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion: In Puerto Rico, an instruction to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prime facial evidence of conversion is an important concept in legal proceedings related to property disputes and the tort of conversion. This instruction helps in determining whether a defendant, who has been accused of converting someone else's property, has unlawfully refused to return the possession of the said property after a valid demand has been made. When a plaintiff claims that their property has been wrongfully possessed by the defendant, the jury may be instructed that the mere fact of a demand for the return of the property and the subsequent refusal by the defendant can be considered as strong evidence of conversion. This instruction helps establish a presumption that the defendant's refusal suggests their intention to exercise control and ownership over the property, which is essential in proving the tort of conversion. There are a few different types of Puerto Rico instructions to the jury regarding the demand for and refusal of possession as prime facial evidence of conversion. These may include: 1. Standard Instruction: In a standard instruction, the jury is informed that if a plaintiff provides evidence of a valid demand for possession of their property and the defendant refuses to comply with the demand, this refusal can be considered as evidence of conversion. However, the jury is also instructed to consider other relevant evidence before making a final determination. 2. Rebut table Presumption Instruction: In certain cases, the jury may be given an instruction that establishes a rebut table presumption. This means that if the plaintiff proves a valid demand for possession and the defendant's refusal, it creates a presumption that conversion has occurred. However, the defendant is given an opportunity to present evidence to rebut this presumption and provide an alternative explanation for their refusal. 3. Alternative Instruction: Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the jury may receive an instruction that places more emphasis on additional factors or conditions that need to be present for the demand and refusal to be considered as prime facial evidence of conversion. For example, the instruction might require the demand to be clear, specific, and unequivocal, and the refusal to be deliberate, knowing, and intentional. In conclusion, the Puerto Rico Instruction to Jury that Demand for and Refusal of Possession is Prime Facial Evidence of Conversion is a vital legal tool used in determining the occurrence of conversions involving property. It establishes a strong presumption against the defendant based on their refusal to return the property after a valid demand and serves as essential guidance for the jury in reaching a fair and just verdict.
