Summary of Popov v. Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731 (Ca. Sup. Ct. 2002).

Facts
!opov (!) and Hayashi (D) brought baseball gloves hoping that they would catch Bonds'
record setting home run baseball. A cameraman captured the event on videotape. Just as
!opov caught the ball he was overwhelmed by a mob engaged in violent and illegal behavior.
!opov was buried face under several layers of people. He intended to establish and maintain
possession of the ball but at some point it left his glove.
Hayashi was standing near !opov and was involuntarily forced to the ground. While on the
ground Hayashi saw the loose ball and took it but committed no wrongful act. The plaintiff
brought suit for conversion, trespass to chattel, injunctive relief and constructive trust.
Issue
O f an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of
abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others,
does the actor have a legal pre-possessory interest in the property?
4/3 a3/ Rue
es. Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another.
There must be actual interference with the plaintiff's dominion. Wrongful withholding of
property can constitute actual interference even where the defendant lawfully acquired the
property.
f a person entitled to possession of personal property demands its return, the unjustified
refusal to give the property back is conversion. The act constituting conversion must be
intentionally done. There is no requirement however that the defendant know that the
property belongs to another, and the defendant need not intend to dispossess the true owner
of its use and enjoyment.
The injured party may elect to seek either specific performance to regain the property or
monetary damages. Trespass to chattel, in contrast, exists where personal property has been
damaged or where the defendant has interfered with the plaintiff's use of the property. Actual
dispossession is not an element of the tort of trespass to chattel.
Conversion does not exist unless the baseball rightfully belongs to !opov. Before it was hit it
belonged to Major League Baseball. At the time it was hit it became intentionally abandoned
property. The first person who came in possession of the ball became its new owner.
Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece
of abandoned personal property and the failure to continue the effort is interrupted by the
unlawful acts of others, the actor has a pre-possessory interest in the property. This pre-
possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support a cause of
action for conversion.
An award of the ball to the plaintiff would be unfair to Hayashi. t would be premised on the
unsupported assumption that !opov would have caught the ball. An award of the ball to the
defendant would unfairly penalize !opov. t would be based on the unsupported assumption
that !opov would have dropped the ball. Each man has a claim of equal dignity as to the
other and both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball.
!opov's cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided
interest. n order to effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the proceeds divided
equally between the parties.
sp4st43
Judgment reversed. The court ordered that the ball be sold and the profits divided equally.