By: Derek Hawkins//August 1, 2016//
7th 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 A single tangential Seventh Circuit case cited in an unpublished federal district court opinion is hardly “convincing evidence” of what Illinois law would be regarding the demand element of a conversion claim.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