1. Conversion
1.1. Requires
1.1.1. A volitional act intending to exercise dominion and control over the plaintiff's tangible property (Chattel)
1.1.2. Exercise and dominion actually occurred and interfered with Plaintiffs right to control or posses that the defedant is required to pay the full fair market value for the chattel at the time of conversion.
1.1.2.1. Determining the seriousness of interference
1.1.2.1.1. Extent and duration of Defendant exercising control
1.1.2.1.2. Intent to assert a right inconsistent iwth Plaintiff's right to control
1.1.2.1.3. Defendant's good faith
1.1.2.1.4. The extent and duration of the interference
1.1.2.1.5. Harm done to the chattel
1.1.2.1.6. Inconvenience and expense caused to plaintiff
1.1.2.2. To have harm or damage to a chattel one of the following must be completed
1.1.2.2.1. Disposession of the chattel
1.1.2.2.2. Destroying or altering the chattel
1.1.2.2.3. Using a chattel (That ownership is questioned)
1.1.2.2.4. Receiving a chattel
1.1.2.2.5. Disposing of a chattel
1.1.2.2.6. Mis-delivering of a chattel
1.1.2.2.7. Refusing to surrender a chattel
1.2. Consequence
1.2.1. The plaintiff's right to control or possess a chattel is seriously interfered with, causing the defendant to pay the fair market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion.
1.3. Model Law
1.3.1. To prove conversion the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, that the following elements were satisfied:
1.3.1.1. Substantial dominion over the property interferring with the plaintiff's rights
1.3.1.1.1. Methods of conversion are
1.3.1.2. Plaintiff's possessory interest
1.3.1.3. Defendant must intend to cause damage to the chatterl
1.3.1.3.1. to intend, the defendant must purposefully or know with substantial certainty that damage will occur to the chattel.
2. Trespass to Land
2.1. Requires
2.1.1. Entry to Land
2.1.1.1. An individual who enters or causes tangible entry upon land in possession of another.
2.1.1.1.1. Land does not need to be harmed
2.1.1.2. Refusal to leave or remove goods (all movable or tangible things) from the land when under obligation to do so constitutes entry
2.1.2. Intent to enter land or to cause entry to land.
2.1.2.1. Entry is intended when
2.1.2.1.1. it is the Defendant's purpose to enter
2.1.2.1.2. If his actions will cause him to know with substantial certainty they will cause an entry to land.
2.1.2.2. Entry by negligence or w/o an act by free will DO NOT constitute entry
2.2. Consequence
2.2.1. Entry to land in the possession of another that prevents their exclusive possession of the land.
2.3. Model Law
2.3.1. To prove Trespass to land, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, the following elements
2.3.1.1. that the defendant had entered land in the possession or another -with their own free will- and intended to enter or commit the equivalent of entry
2.3.1.1.1. To prove entry, the plaintiff must show the defendant tangibly interfered with their exclusive possession of the land
2.3.1.2. The defendant must have entered the land of another or cause a thing or third person to do so.
2.3.1.3. To prove possession, the plaintiff must hold the legal title to the land or legal possession when trespass occurred.
3. Trespass to Chattels
3.1. Requires
3.1.1. Direct interference with the use or possession of a chattel by another.
3.1.2. An individual must act in a way that directly interferes with the plaintiff's possession (chattel) that causes legally recognizable harm.
3.1.2.1. The act must be done of the Defendant's own free will
3.1.2.2. A chattel is the tangible property in possession of the plaintiff
3.1.2.2.1. may extend to protect computer systems from electronic invasions from spam
3.1.2.2.2. Ownership is not required
3.1.2.3. Interference can be direct or indirect
3.1.2.3.1. Direct touching
3.1.2.3.2. indirect
3.1.3. Intent to cause interferance with the plaintiff's use or posession of a chattel.
3.1.3.1. Purposefully to cause an interference with the chattel
3.1.3.2. know with substantial certainty that the chattel will be interfered with
3.1.4. Proof of damages or harm to the chattel
3.2. Consequence
3.3. Model Law
3.3.1. To prove trespass to chattels, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, that the following elements were satifisfied
3.3.1.1. Without consent or privelege, the defendant uses or otherwise intentionally intermeddles with a chattel in the posession of another
3.3.1.1.1. AND one of the following interferences
3.3.1.1.2. Consent is the plaintiff's permission to use or inter-meddle with the chattel
3.3.1.1.3. to intentionally intermeddle with a chattel is to purposefully or know with substantial certainty that the chattel will be interfered with.