act with Leonard. Our review of the amended complaint leads us to conclude that the allegations failed to establish that Marilyn Fink committed the requisite tortious acts in Florida. The underlying allegations are based on the unilateral actions of Leonard Fink who was solely responsible for the withdrawal of his father’s funds from the joint account he maintained with Russo in Florida. Moreover, the complaint does not allege that Marilyn Fink took part in the withdrawal of the funds or that she was present in Florida when the act occurred. Even assuming Marilyn Fink did play a role in controlling the funds after they left Florida, the relevant act for personal jurisdiction purposes with regard to the tort of conversion is the initial wrongful deprivation. See Merkin, 855 So.2d at 140 (<HOLDING>); Envases Venezolanos, S.A., 559 So.2d at 652
holding that actual posses sion requires some visible means which gives notice of exclusion from the property to the true owner or to the public and of the adverse claimants dominion over it recognizing that knowledge and dominion and control are separate elements and stating that it is conceivable that an accused might be well aware of the presence of the substance but have no ability to maintain control over it holding that one who exercises daytoday control over the employee will be considered as the employer holding that where drugs are found in the presence and plain view of the owner or resident occupant of a home dominion and control maybe inferred holding that the tort of conversion accrues where a party exercises wrongful dominion and control over the property to the detriment of the rights of its actual owner