The Evolution Of The Tort Of Conversion.

An employee made several hundred thousand dollars in purchases on his employer’s credit card, and the employer brought an action for conversion. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $446,447.81. On appeal, the employee/defendant contended that the use of a credit card to obtain money did not constitute the tort of conversion. In its analysis, the appellate court noted the case of  Payne v. Elliot (1880) 54 Cal. 339, which stated that at common law, trover was the remedy for conversion, and it was limited to tangible personal property, “capable of being identified and taken into actual possession.” In the instant case, the appellate court affirmed, stating that “defendant’s use of plaintiff’s credit card on defendant’s credit card terminal to transfer improperly specific sums of money to defendant’s bank account was a conversion as pleaded by plaintiff.” (Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; January 23, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 877].)