Popov v. Hayashi

Last updated

Popov v. Hayashi
Great Seal of California.svg
Court California Superior Court
Full case name Alex Popov v. Patrick Hayashi
DecidedDecember 18, 2002

Popov v. Hayashi (WL 31833731 Ca. Sup. Ct. 2002) was a California Superior Court case involving scope of ownership between parties and conversion regarding a valuable baseball acquired at a Major League Baseball game. The question present in this case is who has ownership of an item when one acquired it legally, but lost it due to the criminal act of another third party, allowing the other person to, by all standards, acquire the item legally. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Contents

Background

On October 7, 2001, the last game of the 2001 Major League Baseball season, the San Francisco Giants faced the Los Angeles Dodgers at San Francisco's Pacific Bell Park. [5] Giants slugger Barry Bonds was trying to add to his single season home run record he had set two days before. [6] If Bonds hit a home run, the record-setting ball would have considerable value, estimated to be as high as $1.5 million. [7] When he hit it, it flew into the stands and plaintiff Alex Popov was there to catch it. The ball entered his glove but he was immediately attacked by a large group of individuals, causing him to drop the ball and fall to the ground underneath a pile of persons. [3] [1] [4] [2] At that same time, defendant Patrick Hayashi was also knocked over by the same group of wrongdoers. While on the ground the ball rolled towards him and he picked it up claiming it as his own. He did not wrong Popov in any way and had acquired the ball legally. Popov believed the ball was rightfully his and, when Hayashi refused, took the case to court. The whole event was videotaped allowing all parties to view it. [3] [1] [4] [2]

Case

Popov sued Hayashi for conversion, believing that once it had touched his glove the baseball became his and although Hayashi came about it legally, he still had the duty to return it to its rightful owner. [3] [1] [4] [2]

Before the baseball was hit, it was considered property of MLB and after it was hit was considered intentionally abandoned property. Under this theory, whoever comes into possession of it first is the rightful owner. [3] [1] [4] [2]

However, in all legal sense, Hayashi had come by the ball lawfully as well. In fact, if Popov had dropped the ball without having been attacked by the group of wrongdoers, it would have still been considered abandoned property that would be acquired by whoever successfully grasped it first. [3] [1] [4] [2]

The court considered that legal possession in this instance requires successfully attaining it and the intent to possess. Popov did both of these and so upon his losing it, it was considered his property. However, simultaneously, the court considered that his loss of it cancelled his possession of it and thus Hayashi was in legal possession. But simply giving Hayashi the rights to it would be unfair as well, as Popov would likely have certainly been in possession of it if not attacked by the wrongdoers. [3] [1] [4] [2]

Decision

The court eventually concluded that both parties had rights to the ball and neither could be deprived of it lawfully, and the best solution was an equitable division. The two of them would sell the ball and split the proceeds evenly. [3] [1] [4] [2]

For this decision the court set a new precedent of qualified pre-possessory interest allowing for both Popov to claim his property had been converted and it was still his, while also allowing Hayashi legal rights over the ball. [3] [1] [4] [2]

Significance

This was such an unusual case in property law since if any of the facts were slightly different it would have completely changed the decision of the case and given complete ownership to one party over the other. If Popov had not been attacked and dropped the ball on his own accord, Hayashi would have been the legal owner. Conversely, if Hayashi had been one of the wrongdoers he would have committed wrongful conversion and the ball would legally be Popov’s property. [3] [1] [4] [2]

This case sets a precedent for similar scenarios where simple conversion of rightful property is not easy to determine. In cases where rightful ownership cannot be distinguished between parties, it is acceptable and reasonable to split the ownership evenly. [3] [1] [4] [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. Like ownership, the possession of anything is commonly regulated under the property law of a jurisdiction. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it as well as access to it and control over it. A person may be in possession of some piece of property without being its owner.

Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land) and personal property. Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property, including intellectual property. Property can be exchanged through contract law, and if property is violated, one could sue under tort law to protect it.

Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law, where in many cases it remains in force.

In property law, title is an intangible construct representing a bundle of rights in (to) a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document, such as a deed, that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, possession and title may each be transferred independently of the other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information.

In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from the intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.

Adverse possession in common law, and its related civil law concept acquisitive prescription, are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission (licence) of its legal owner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homestead principle</span> Legal principle regarding unclaimed natural resources

The homestead principle is the principle by which one gains ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation. Appropriation could be enacted by putting an unowned resource to active use , joining it with previously acquired property, or by marking it as owned.

Usucaption, also known as acquisitive prescription, is a concept found in civil law systems and has its origin in the Roman law of property.

Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

Pierson v. Post is an early American legal case from the State of New York that later became a foundational case in the field of property law.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common law jurisdictions for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

<i>Armory v Delamirie</i> Landmark English legal case about loss of personal property

Armory v Delamirie[1722] EWHC J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, is a famous English case on personal property law and finder's rights. It is one of the first cases that established possession as a valuable property right and as evidence of ownership. The defendant in the case was Paul de Lamerie, a great producer of silverworks in the 18th century. His name was misspelled by the court reporter.

<i>Up for Grabs</i> (film) 2004 film by Michael Wranovics

Up for Grabs is a 2004 comedic documentary about two men who fought over custody of a baseball. It is based on a real-life incident surrounding a record-setting Barry Bonds home run, where the ball was contested in the property law case of Popov v. Hayashi. It was directed and produced by Michael Wranovics.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

<i>Haslem v. Lockwood</i>

Thomas Haslem v. William A. Lockwood, Connecticut, (1871) is an important United States case in property, tort, conversion, trover and nuisance law.

Tracing is a procedure in English law used to identify property which has been taken from the claimant involuntarily or which the claimant wishes to recover. It is not in itself a way to recover the property, but rather to identify it so that the courts can decide what remedy to apply. The procedure is used in several situations, broadly demarcated by whether the property has been transferred because of theft, breach of trust, or mistake.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, but is now mostly registered and sold on the real estate market. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, and legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates priority over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Property: Popov v. Hayashi". Invisible College Press.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Summary of Popov v. Hayashi (2002), 2002 2002 WL 31833731". 4 Law School.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Popov v. Hayashi – Case Brief Summary". Lawnix.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Popov v Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731, (Cal Superior Ct)". Casebrief.me.
  5. "Los Angeles Dodgers at San Francisco Giants Box Score, October 7, 2001". Baseball Reference. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  6. "A Welcome Distraction". The New York Times . October 8, 2001. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved January 25, 2017.
  7. Bean, Matt (June 26, 2003). "'Million-dollar' Bonds ball sells for $450,000". CNN.com . Retrieved January 25, 2017.