Common law; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c); CACI No. 2100
Conversion: strict liability for taking what is not yours
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Conversion is the civil claim for taking someone's property. It is older than most of the law around it, and it has one feature that surprises defendants: it does not require a wrongful state of mind.
A defendant who took your property in the honest and reasonable belief that it was theirs has still converted it. Good faith is not a defense. Intent matters only in the sense that the act must be intentional — the defendant meant to exercise control over the thing — not that they meant to do anything wrong.
The limit is what counts as property. Money is generally not convertible unless it was a specific, identifiable sum rather than a debt, which is the boundary these cases are fought on.
What the claim is
Someone exercised dominion over your personal property in a way inconsistent with your rights, and seriously interfered with your ability to use it.
The recurring situations: a business partner takes inventory or equipment; a contractor keeps materials; a bank applies funds it had no right to; a former employee leaves with company property; a storage facility sells goods it should have held; someone refuses to return property lent to them.
Serious interference is required. A momentary or trivial interference is trespass to chattels, a lesser tort requiring proof of actual damage. Conversion requires an interference substantial enough that the defendant may properly be required to pay the property's full value.
Where the right comes from
Common law, unchanged in structure since it developed as an action for goods lost and found.
What a plaintiff has to prove — CACI No. 2100
- The plaintiff owned the property, possessed it, or had a right to possess it.
- The defendant substantially interfered with the property — by knowingly or intentionally taking possession, preventing access, destroying it, or refusing to return it after demand.
- The plaintiff did not consent.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
- The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
The plaintiff does not need to have owned the property. A right to possession is enough, which is why a bailee, a lienholder, or a secured party can sue.
Demand and refusal is not an element, but it is often the practical proof. Where the defendant came into possession lawfully — a repair shop, a borrower, a storage company — the conversion occurs when they refuse to return the property on demand, and the demand is what establishes it.
Can money be converted?
Sometimes, and the distinction is exact.
Yes where the money is a specific, identifiable sum the defendant was obliged to keep separate and deliver — funds held in trust, an escrow deposit, proceeds the defendant collected on the plaintiff's behalf, a determinate sum belonging to the plaintiff.
No where the relationship is one of debtor and creditor. A general obligation to pay money is not property that can be converted; failing to pay it is a breach of contract. A plaintiff who pleads conversion to attach punitive damages to an unpaid invoice will lose the claim on demurrer.
The test is whether the money was a specific fund the defendant held for you, or a debt the defendant owed you.
How long you have to file
Three years, under CCP § 338(c), for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or chattels.
The discovery rule applies, and it is written into the section for certain property. Ordinarily the claim accrues on the conversion itself, but where the taking was concealed the period runs from discovery.
A demand does not restart the clock where the conversion had already occurred. Where the defendant's possession began lawfully, however, the refusal on demand is the conversion, and that is when the period starts.
Note the mismatch with fraud. A scheme that involved both fraud and conversion produces two claims under the same section — both three years — but with different accrual, because § 338's codified discovery rule for fraud does not carry over automatically to subdivision (c).
What has to happen before you file
Nothing.
A demand for return is not a legal prerequisite, but make one. Where the defendant obtained the property lawfully, a demand and refusal is what converts lawful possession into conversion, and without it there may be no wrongful act to point to.
Character: an evidentiary step, not a gate — except where the defendant's possession began lawfully, in which case the refusal is a substantive element rather than a formality.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
Anyone who exercised dominion over the property, including someone who acquired it innocently. A good faith purchaser of converted goods is generally liable to the true owner, subject to the Commercial Code's protections for certain buyers in the ordinary course of business.
Multiple defendants in a chain can each be liable, and the plaintiff may recover only once.
Not a defendant with a superior right of possession — a secured creditor lawfully repossessing collateral, or a lienholder exercising a valid lien, has not converted anything.
Common defenses
The defendant had a superior right to possess the property.
Consent, including consent implied by course of dealing.
Abandonment, which extinguishes the plaintiff's interest.
It was a debt, not identifiable property — the defense that disposes of most conversion claims attached to money.
The interference was not substantial — trespass to chattels rather than conversion, which changes the remedy from full value to actual damage.
Privilege, for a lawful repossession or a statutory sale.
The three-year period.
Anti-SLAPP rarely applies, but it can where the alleged conversion consisted of an act taken in the course of litigation — an attachment, a levy, or a receiver's action. Those are protected, and the litigation privilege at Civil Code § 47(b) generally bars the claim as well.
What the claim pays
The full value of the property at the time of conversion, plus interest — not the diminution in value, and not the cost of repair. The measure is the whole thing, because conversion is in effect a forced sale to the defendant.
Fair market value is the usual measure, with an exception for property having no market value, where value to the owner may be used.
Damages for time and money reasonably spent pursuing the property, which California allows expressly and which few other torts provide.
Loss of use and consequential damages proximately caused.
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice. Conversion itself does not establish malice — the tort's strict liability character means a defendant can be liable without any showing that would support punitive damages.
Return of the property is available where it still exists, through a claim in claim and delivery rather than conversion, which is a distinct statutory remedy with its own procedure.
No fee-shifting.
Jury trial: yes.
What people get wrong
"They thought it was theirs, so it isn't conversion." Good faith is not a defense. The tort is one of strict liability.
"They owe me money, so they converted it." Not unless it was a specific identifiable sum they held for you rather than a debt they owed you.
"I have to have owned it." A right to possession is enough.
"I have two years." Three, under § 338(c).
"I never demanded it back, so I have no claim." Demand is not an element in every case — but where they got the property lawfully, the refusal on demand is what makes it conversion.
"I'll get the repair cost." You get the full value at the time of conversion.
"It's the same as theft." Conversion is the civil claim. It requires no criminal intent and carries no criminal consequence.
"I can plead conversion instead of breach of contract to get punitive damages." Not on an unpaid debt, and the attempt draws a demurrer.
Where it came from
Conversion descends from the medieval action of trover, which was pleaded as a fiction — the plaintiff alleged they had lost the goods and the defendant had found and kept them. Nobody believed the loss and finding; the fiction existed to get a remedy in damages rather than a return of the specific item.
That origin explains the modern remedy. Because trover awarded the value of the goods rather than the goods themselves, conversion still operates as a forced sale: the defendant pays full value and effectively buys the property.
It also explains the strict liability. The action asked whether the defendant had the goods, not whether they had behaved badly, and California never grafted a fault requirement onto it.
The live question is what counts as property. Courts have extended conversion to some intangible interests where the right is merged into a document or is sufficiently definite, while holding the line against claims that would convert every contractual entitlement into a tort. The specific-sum rule for money is the most important expression of that boundary.
Common questions
Does the defendant have to know the property was mine?
No. Conversion is a strict liability tort. A defendant with an honest and reasonable belief that the property was theirs is still liable.
Can I sue for conversion of money?
Only if the money was a specific, identifiable sum the defendant held for you — funds in trust, an escrow deposit, proceeds collected on your behalf. A general debt is not convertible.
How long do I have?
Three years, under CCP § 338(c). The discovery rule applies where the taking was concealed.
Do I have to demand the property back first?
Not always. But where the defendant came into possession lawfully, the refusal after a demand is what makes the possession wrongful — so a demand is often what creates the claim.
What do I recover?
The full fair market value of the property at the time of conversion, plus interest, loss of use, and the reasonable time and money you spent trying to get it back.
Is conversion the same as theft?
No. Theft is a crime requiring criminal intent. Conversion is a civil claim that requires no wrongful intent at all.