Conversion

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Leland O. Stevens et al v. Interactive Financial Advisors, Incorporated et al

Case No.: 15-2130

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Conversion

Appellant fails to provide case law or facts to support appropriate timing for a demand for property in a conversion claim.

“In support of his position, Stevens only cites a single unreported federal district court opinion, which in turn cites a single Seventh Circuit case. See MacNeil Auto. Prod., Ltd. v. Cannon Auto. Ltd., 2010 WL 4823592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2010), citing LaParr v. City of Rockford, 100 F.2d 564, 565–66 (7th Cir. 1938). MacNeil’s reliance on LaParr was misplaced: LaParr’s discussion of a “demand” relates to a controversy regarding the appropriate reference point for interest accrual, not regarding what satisfies the demand element of a conversion claim. See LaParr, 100 F.2d at 568–69. LaParr references no Illinois case that discusses the appropriate timing for a demand for property in a conversion claim, and certainly does not stand for the proposition that filing a lawsuit fulfills the demand element of a conversion claim under Illinois law. A single tangential Seventh Circuit case cited in an unpublished federal district court opinion is hardly “convincing evidence” of what Illinois law would be regarding the demand element of a conversion claim. See Field, 311 U.S. at 178. The district court’s answer to the jury’s question was correct, and not an abuse of discretion.”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.