In July 2002, Haywire Ventures, Inc. “Haywire” and its wholly owned subsidiary, Multicast Media Network, LLC “Multicast” sued Rodney S. Sampson, who was a former director of both companies, for conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and several other related claims. Sampson counterclaimed for libel, tortious interference with contractual relations, false imprisonment, conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, corporate accounting, and attorney fees. This is Sampson’s second appeal before this Court related to this dispute.1 In this appeal, Sampson challenges the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Haywire and Multicast on their claim for conversion and on Sampson’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, corporate accounting, and attorney fees. We discern no error and affirm.Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.2So viewed, the evidence shows that Sampson negotiated an agreement on behalf of Multicast to provide advertising services to Denny’s, Inc. The advertisements purchased by Denny’s were run on websites solely owned by Multicast, and Sampson originally sent Denny’s an invoice with instructions to send payment to Multicast. Sampson later sent Denny’s a replacement invoice with instructions to send payment under the name of a company owned solely by him. After Denny’s sent him a check for the invoiced amount of $20,855, Sampson deposited the funds into a personal account. 1. In support of his claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Haywire and Multicast on their conversion claim, Sampson alleges that the payment made by Denny’s was not for the services rendered by Multicast. Instead, Sampson implies that the advertising services were provided by Multicast at no charge and states that he “considered” the check for $20,855 to be in payment for consulting services that he personally provided to Denny’s.
While Sampson is entitled to all reasonable inferences and conclusions in assessing the evidence on Haywire and Multicast’s motion for summary judgment, such inferences and conclusions must not be unreasonable or based on mere conjecture or possibility.3 Here, it is unreasonable to believe that the advertising services provided by Multicast were free of charge given that i the proposal sent by Sampson to Denny’s describing such advertising services showed that they would cost $20,855; ii after Multicast ran the Denny’s advertisements, Sampson sent Denny’s an invoice with instructions to pay Multicast $20,855 for specific advertising services provided by Multicast; and iii Denny’s asserts that its check for $20,855 was delivered to Sampson in payment for the advertising services provided by Multicast and not for any consulting services personally provided by Sampson. Because Denny’s payment for Multicast’s advertising services is specific and identifiable, it is properly the subject of the conversion claim against Sampson,4 and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim.
