How Do I Get My Horse Back From Stable Owner in Arizona?
Conversion is a action brought in civil court to recover the value of personal items of property, wrongfully converted by another to his own use. The action seeks a remedy for the conversion, not the taking of the item. If the items are of a unique nature, so that money can’t replace the item, a writ (official order) of replevin may be sought in court. A replevin petition seeks the return of the particular items taken.
Conversion is when someone wrongfully uses property of another for their own purposes or alters or destroys it. In an action for conversion, the taking of the property may be lawful, but the retaining of the property is unlawful. To succeed in the action, the plaintiff must prove that he or she demanded the property returned and the defendant refused to do so. Damages may be recovered for the replacement value of the property as well as for the loss of its use. Conversion is very similar to theft, but is a civil action, not a criminal action.
For civil cases, venue is usually the district or county which is the residence of a principal defendant or where they regularly conduct business, where a contract was executed or is to be performed, or where an accident or harnful act took place. In a civil case, the complaint must be served on the defendant. In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, the court must have in personam (personal) jurisdiction over that person in order to try the case. To serve a defendant who is out-of-state, due process requires that the defendant have minimum contacts in the state where the lawsuit is filed. The defendant’s activities in the state must be significant enough to make it foreseeable that he would be called into court in that that. For example, when the defendant has a place of business in the state, it is often sufficient to get personal jurisdiction over him.
Oral contracts are enforceable, but hard to prove. If you pursue a legal remedy, You may wish to review the following information regarding contracts. Contracts are agreements that are legally enforceable. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties. An oral contract is an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract may generally be enforced the same as a written agreement. However, it is much more difficult with an oral contract to prove its existence or the terms. Oral contracts also usually have a shorter time period within which a person seeking to enforce their contract right must sue. A written contract generally provides a longer time to sue than for breach of an oral contract. Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law generally refers to the terms of the agreement between the parties, as parties have freedom to override many state law requirements regarding formalities of contracts. Each state has developed its own common law of contracts, which consists of a body of jurisprudence developed over time by trial and appellate courts on a case-by-case basis.
An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.
Restitution is a remedy designed to restore the injured party to the position occupied prior to the formation of the contract. Parties seeking restitution may not request to be compensated for lost profits or other earnings caused by a breach. Instead, restitution aims at returning to the plaintiff any money or property given to the defendant under the contract. Plaintiffs typically seek restitution when contracts they have entered are voided by courts due to a defendant's incompetence or incapacity.
Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach.
Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered.
Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of an ordinary and average person.
Please see the following AZ statutes:
3-1295. Lien for feed, pasturage and other services
A. A person who furnishes pasture, feed or other services for livestock
on the premises of that person has a lien on the stock for the amount of
the charges that are due and unpaid. A person having such lien may retain
the stock until the charges are paid. If possession continues for twenty
days after the charges accrue, and the charges have not been paid, the
person retaining possession of the stock may perfect the amount of the lien
by filing an action in either superior court or justice court, according to
the amount in controversy, in the jurisdiction of the holder of the stock.
The hearing shall be held not less than ten and not more than twenty days
after the date the action is filed in court. If the prevailing party does
not receive payment due within ten days after the final judgment of the
court, the prevailing party becomes the owner of the stock. The court shall
award the prevailing party court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
B. On presenting a judgment of the court in the appropriate jurisdiction
awarding ownership to the holder of the stock in satisfaction of the lien,
the department shall issue to the holder of the stock such ownership and
hauling certificates, certificates of inspection or other papers ordinarily
required on the transfer of ownership of livestock.
3-1294. Improperly maintaining a stallion or jack; classification; seizure
and sale; expenses for care
A. A person who maintains a stallion or jack with reckless disregard for
the safety or health of other persons or property or livestock of another
is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
B. In addition, the appropriate court, on affidavit by the livestock
officer, may issue an order to seize and impound the stallion or jack until
remedial action has been taken by the owner, agent or person in charge of
the stallion or jack. If no remedial action has been taken after twenty
days, the livestock officer shall sell the stallion or jack to the highest
bidder for cash at public auction. Immediately after the sale is made, or
after release to the owner who pays the hauling charges and expenses of
feeding and caring for the livestock, the livestock officer shall remit the
proceeds to the agency together with an itemized statement of the expense
of the seizure and sale, which shall be paid as other claims. The amount
received by the agency shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and
35-147, in the livestock custody fund established by section 3-1377 and
retained until final determination by the court of all actions arising from
the seizure of the stallion or jack.