Gregory v. Martin, 2016 Ohio 650

In 2008 Gregory sold two funeral homes to Hardin and Karla Martin for $300,000; Martins paid $150,000 at closing and agreed to pay the remainder in installments but defaulted.
Gregory sued in state court (originally filed in WV; venue moved), and pursued replevin in Jefferson County to recover personal property at the two funeral-home locations.
Bankruptcy proceedings stayed the state action; the bankruptcy court later dismissed claims but preserved Gregory’s right to pursue state remedies for converted personal property.
After initial proceedings and additional evidence (internet photos), the trial court found title had not passed until full payment and granted replevin: defendants were ordered to make available to Gregory all personal property subject to the agreement to the extent it still existed.
About a week later Gregory moved for a conversion hearing and damages, alleging some property no longer existed; the trial court denied that motion. Gregory appealed only the June 17, 2015 replevin order (not the July 8, 2015 denial of the conversion hearing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by awarding possession but not damages under R.C. 2737.14	Gregory contended that, because some property was gone, the court should have awarded damages in the final replevin order	Martins argued replevin sought possession only; damages were not requested in the June 17 order and conversion/damages require separate procedure	Court affirmed: June 17 order proper — it awarded possession "to the extent the property still existed"; damages not requested at that time, so no error
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying conversion hearing/damages after replevin was granted	Gregory argued filings by Martins indicated property was destroyed/donated, so conversion/damages should be adjudicated	Martins pointed to evidence showing some property remained and R.C. 2737.14 requires attempt at delivery before converting to damages; Gregory did not satisfy conversion elements	Court found denial of conversion hearing not properly before it (no appeal of July 8 order). Even if reviewed, denial was correct because delivery/replevin attempt was required before conversion; conversion elements were not established

America Rents v. Crawley, 77 Ohio App.3d 801 (replevin is statutory remedy to recover goods wrongfully retained)
Wysocki v. Oberlin Police Dept., 2014-Ohio-2869 (summary discussion of replevin elements)
Wilson v. Jo–Ann Stores, Inc., 2012-Ohio-2748 (replevin plaintiff need only prove entitlement and defendant's possession)
Long v. Noah's Lost Ark, Inc., 158 Ohio App.3d 206 (R.C. 2737.14 governs when to convert replevin to conversion; delivery attempt required first)
Alb USA Auto, Inc. v. Modic, 2013-Ohio-1561 (where property can be returned, replevin — not conversion — is the proper remedy)
Marthaller v. Kustala, 2008-Ohio-4227 (same principle on replevin vs conversion)
Kostyo v. Kaminski, 2013-Ohio-3188 (definition of conversion)
Dice v. White Family Cos., Inc., 2007-Ohio-5755 (elements of conversion)
State ex rel. Toma v. Corrigan, 92 Ohio St.3d 589 (conversion defined as wrongful dominion over property)