N.C.P.I.—Civil 806.00

NOTE WELL: The defendant could be the alleged original converter

of the plaintiff’s goods or a subsequent purchaser of previously

converted goods. If the defendant claims he or she was a bona

fide purchaser of the plaintiff’s goods, see N.C.P.I. —Civil. 806.04

Conversion—Defense of Good Faith Purchaser.

The (state number) issue reads:

“Did the defendant convert the (name personal property) of the

plaintiff?”

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that the

plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, two things:

First, that until the time the defendant came into possession of the

(name personal property), the plaintiff was its lawful owner and was entitled

to its immediate possession. 1

Second, that the defendant converted the (name personal property) to

the defendant’s own use. Conversion is the unauthorized assumption and

exercise of a right of ownership over personal property belonging to another,

to the [alteration of its condition] 2 [exclusion of an owner’s rights of ownership

over [his] [her] [its] own personal property] [retention of an owner’s personal

property after the owner has made a demand for its return]. 3

The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant had a wrongful intent.

Good faith, honest intentions and innocence are not defenses. 4

Finally, as to this issue on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof, if

you find by the greater weight of the evidence, that the defendant converted

the (name personal property) of the plaintiff, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue “No” in favor of the defendant.