Background

Phase 2 wantlist hit cleared. The Popov decision is canonical in first-year property law instruction for its equitable-division remedy applied to a moment of disputed possession. The substantive holding does not turn on baseball law in any structural sense — it is a personal-property-acquisition case where the chattel happens to be the Bonds 73rd-HR ball — but the case is canonical in the modern baseball-business archive because of the Bonds context, the modern memorabilia-economics dimension (the ball was widely reported to be worth $1M+ at the time, though the actual auction proceeds were closer to $450,000), and the unusual emergence of a published, fully-reasoned Superior Court Statement of Decision on a single-incident chattel dispute. The Bonds connection has become more layered in the years since the ruling: Bonds' 73rd HR was the single-season home run record at the time, later overshadowed by the steroid-era investigations documented in the Mitchell Report (December 13, 2007, in this archive) and the BALCO grand jury investigation (filing also in this archive at 2006_filing_balco-opposition-to-quash). The Hayashi-Popov ball was auctioned in June 2003 for $450,000 — proceeds split as ordered. Bonds' homerun-totals trajectory through 2007 (when he broke Hank Aaron's all-time career record at 756) is the broader memorabilia-economics context. Note on the Berkeley source: 'Scramble: A Search for the Bonds Ball' was a 2003 reporting project by UC Berkeley journalism graduate students; the court PDF is hosted on the project's archived site at projects.journalism.berkeley.edu/scramble. The court PDF is the actual filed Statement of Decision, not a Westlaw reprint.

Key provisions

• Disposition (verbatim, PDF p. 12): 'The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided interest. In order to effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.'
• Constructive possession finding (verbatim, PDF p. 8): 'Mr. Popov has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he would have retained control of the ball after all momentum ceased and after any incidental contact with people or objects. Consequently, he did not achieve full possession.'
• Pre-possessory interest rule (verbatim, PDF p. 9): 'Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. That pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support a cause of action for conversion.'
• Why Popov's interrupted control did not amount to full possession (verbatim, PDF pp. 8-9): 'The reason we do not know whether Mr. Popov would have retained control of the ball is not because of incidental contact. It is because he was attacked. His efforts to establish possession were interrupted by the collective assault of a band of wrongdoers.'
• Evidentiary findings (paraphrase from PDF pp. 2-4): The Keppel videotape and seventeen percipient witnesses establish that Popov initially caught the ball in his glove's upper webbing; that a crowd descended on him before he could secure it; that he was tackled before completing possession; that Hayashi was knocked down without intent to interfere; that Hayashi retrieved the ball lawfully after it had been dislodged. Court rejected Hayashi's expert Ted Kobayashi's testimony that there was insufficient reaction time for the crowd to descend on Popov.

Notable provisions

In 1927, Babe Ruth hit sixty home runs. That record stood for thirty four years until Roger Maris broke it in 1961 with sixty one home runs. Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998. On October 7, 2001, at PacBell Park in San Francisco, Barry Bonds hit number seventy three. That accomplishment set a record which, in all probability, will remain unbroken for years into the future.— Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, slip op. at 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002)

When the seventy-third home run ball went into the arcade, it landed in the upper portion of the webbing of a softball glove worn by Alex Popov. While the glove stopped the trajectory of the ball, it is not at all clear that the ball was secure. Popov had to reach for the ball and in doing so, may have lost his balance.— Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, slip op. at 2 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002)

The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided interest. In order to effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties.— Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, slip op. at 12 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002)

Further context

Popov v. Hayashi (S.F. Superior Ct. 2002) — the Bonds 73rd HR ball case

California Superior Court Statement of Decision by Judge Kevin M. McCarthy (Dept. 306, San Francisco) in the dispute over Barry Bonds' 73rd home run ball of the 2001 season. December 18, 2002. Phase 2 wantlist hit cleared. Verified via Berkeley journalism school project (court PDF) + Prof. Roger Ford UNH Law (Westlaw reprint).

The ruling, in one sentence

The ball must be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Popov (who interrupted-possession-caught it) and Hayashi (who lawfully retrieved it from the ground after a crowd dislodged Popov's hold).

Why this case is canonical in property law

The opinion crystallized an equitable-division remedy for moments of disputed acquisition: when one party has done significant but incomplete work toward possessing a chattel and a second party has lawfully completed the acquisition after the first was interrupted by third parties, the court can divide the proceeds. The doctrine has been widely taught in first-year property courses since.

Why it's in this archive

Three reasons. First, the chattel at issue — Bonds' 73rd HR ball — is itself a baseball-history artifact, and its commercial value (auctioned in June 2003 for $450,000, proceeds split as ordered) made the case a national story at the moment of decision. Second, the Bonds context has become more layered in the years since, with the steroid-era investigations documented in the Mitchell Report (December 13, 2007, in this archive) and the BALCO grand jury investigation (in this archive at 2006_filing_balco-opposition-to-quash) — the 73rd-HR record is no longer received the same way it was at the moment of the ball's flight. Third, the case is unusual in producing a published, fully-reasoned California Superior Court Statement of Decision on a single-incident chattel dispute — most such disputes settle without a written ruling.

Verification status

verified — two independent reprints (Berkeley journalism school PDF of the court's filed Statement of Decision + Prof. Roger Ford / UNH Law Westlaw reprint) display the same court, case number, judge, date, and substantive holding text paragraph-for-paragraph.

Source provenance

• Primary source
• Prof. Roger Allan Ford (UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law) — Property course materials