Greer v. Bruce, 2014 Ohio 4901

Greer stored industrial equipment on land he asserted he leased from Earl Bruce as a "laydown yard" under an oral agreement; he had access to the property and kept substantial items there.
In June 2011 the Bruces (Earl and son Gerald) caused contractor Robert Writesel to remove and sell Greer’s equipment for scrap before the deadline Earl had given Greer to vacate. Writesel made an obscene gesture while removing items.
Greer sued for conversion. He presented expert evidence valuing the removed items at $344,990 and testified he would have paid a 12% commission on sales.
The magistrate found conversion, awarded compensatory damages of $303,591.20 (after commission) and punitive damages in the same amount; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
The Bruces appealed, arguing (1) the court had effectively allowed them to clear the property and (2) they had a right to remove trespassers; they also challenged the punitive damages finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bruces committed conversion by removing and selling Greer’s equipment	Greer: He was a lessee entitled to possession; the sudden confiscation and sale was wrongful	Bruces: They had authority to clear the property (court effectively allowed it) or at least Greer was a trespasser so self-help was permitted	Court: Greer was a lessee (oral lease credited). No journalized court authorization existed; statutory eviction procedures apply. Bruces liable for conversion
Whether self-help eviction was lawful	Greer: No waiver of statutory eviction procedures; confiscation and sale unlawful	Bruces: Commercial self-help allowed or parties waived judicial process; they needed to clear land	Court: No evidence of waiver of statutory notice or agreement permitting self-help; R.C. eviction process required; self-help unlawful here
Whether punitive damages were warranted and excessive	Greer: Bruces acted with conscious disregard for Greer’s rights (sold items, refused opportunity to reclaim)	Bruces: No malice; conduct defensive to clear land; also contractor Writesel’s conduct drove award	Court: Punitive damages appropriate—Bruces acted with conscious disregard. Award within statutory limits; trial court did not abuse discretion (concurring judge would reduce because Writesel was independent contractor)

Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing trial-court fact findings)
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting, 351 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio 1976) (definition of conversion as wrongful exercise of dominion)
Norwell v. Cincinnati, 729 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio App.) (conversion principles)
Eysoldt v. Proscan Imaging, 957 N.E.2d 780 (Ohio App.) (conversion definition and damages)
Northfield Park Assoc. v. Northeast Ohio Harness, 521 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio App. 1987) (commercial leases may permit waiver of statutory eviction procedures)
Blair v. McDonagh, 894 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio App.) (definition of actual malice for punitive damages)
Kemp v. Kemp, 831 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio App.) (trial court discretion on punitive damages)