A. Definition

• Library: Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) (2021 Ed.)

A. Definition

Conversion is a tort action,¹ an action at law.² It is the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the goods or personal chattels of another, to the alteration of the condition or the exclusion of the owner's rights.³ Conversion is the illegal use, misuse, or detention of another's chattel to the exclusion of the owner's rights.⁴ It cannot arise from a defendant's exercise of a legal right over property,⁵ or from a relationship of creditor and debtor, or where real property is at issue.⁶ Conversion will not lie solely for the goodwill of a business because it is inseparable from the business and its assets. Therefore goodwill can only be the subject of an action for conversion where the business or its assets are also at issue.⁷ Money may be the subject of conversion where it is capable of being identified.⁸ In the case of negotiable instruments, the action is governed by S.C. Code § 36-3-419.⁹

The South Carolina Supreme Court addressed the question of whether intangible rights may be the subject of an action for conversion.¹⁰ The plaintiff was the widow of a lawyer. After his death the firm retained his name. The personal representative of the decedent's estate brought an action against the firm contending it continued to use and profit from his name without the consent of the estate and without making compensation for its use. One cause of action in the complaint was for conversion. The widow was assigned the rights to the claims arising under the complaint. The court noted that courts do recognize that certain intangible rights may properly be the object of an action for conversion, but often limit claims to instances where the rights "have some documented basis to support them." The general rule in South Carolina has been that intangible rights are normally not the proper subject of a conversion claim which ordinarily lies only for personal property that is tangible or is represented by or connected with something that is tangible. The court was reluctant to expand the action as it relates to intangible property. It concluded that a claim should be limited to intangible property rights identified with "some document." Since the plaintiff widow sought to enforce alleged property right that was intangible without documentation evidencing the right, the property was not properly subject to a claim for conversion.

--------

Notes:

^[1] Castell v. Stephenson Finance Co., 244 S.C. 45, 135 S.E.2d 311 (1964); Steele v. Victory Savings Bank, 295 S.C. 290, 368 S.E.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1988). See also Williams-Garrett v. Murphy, 106 F. Supp. 2d 834 (D.S.C. 2000).

^[2] Moore v....