David Heany and Thirsty Dog, Inc., sued landlord Bennett Street Properties after it retained fixtures and other property left at commercial premises. Thirsty Dog claimed its lease assignment preserved a tenant’s right to remove trade fixtures; Heany claimed a security interest in some of the property. The Court of Appeals held that factual disputes remained over whether Bennett Street accepted the assignment and extended Thirsty Dog’s possession, and for how long, leaving unresolved the tenant’s right to remove fixtures. It separately held that factual questions remained about the priority and reasonable duration of Heany’s security interest. Those disputes also prevented summary judgment for Bennett Street on fraud claims based on an alleged promise to allow retrieval of the property. The court affirmed denial of the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and reversed grants of summary judgment to Bennett Street on the conversion, reasonable-hire, fraud, and related punitive-damages and attorney-fee claims.