Sipes, T. v. Hopper, D., 1867 WDA 2016

Hopper and others operated a china factory; they (collectively “Hopper”) acquired the property via purchase of the mortgage and tax sale activity in 1999 and ran the plant until ~2003 when operations ceased and utilities were turned off.
In December 2006 Sipes purchased the real estate at a tax sale for $2,500; the parties agree Hopper retained ownership of the manufacturing equipment left in the building but provided no inventory to Sipes after the sale.
Sipes notified Hopper (through counsel) in April 2007 that Hopper had until April 16, 2007 to remove equipment and that Sipes had paid $10,000 to Columbia Gas to address a lien; Sipes demanded reimbursement prior to release of equipment.
Hopper made limited removal attempts (twice) with unqualified helpers and did not retain professionals until about a month after the April deadline; some equipment was later scrapped by Sipes’s contractor to remove debris.
Hopper sued for conversion and damages; the non-jury trial court found Sipes had lawful justification to dispose of the equipment because Hopper unreasonably failed to remove or protect it during the approximately four-month period after the tax sale.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding trial-court factual findings supported by the record and that Sipes did not convert Hopper’s equipment; no damages were owed.

Issue	Hopper's Argument	Sipes' Argument	Held
Whether Sipes converted Hopper’s equipment by disposing of it after the tax sale	Sipes unlawfully deprived Hopper of chattels and should be liable for conversion	Sipes acted reasonably and had lawful justification to dispose after Hopper failed to remove or protect equipment	No conversion; court found Hopper unreasonably delayed and Sipes had justification to dispose
Whether Hopper’s claimed values require damages calculation	Hopper asserted very high values based on an old handwritten 1992 list (millions) or his own ~$600,000 estimate	Sipes disputed value and emphasized Hopper’s failure to safeguard or timely remove items	No damages calculated because conversion was not proved; valuation issue moot

Company Image Knitware, Ltd. v. Mothers Work, Inc., 909 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review in non-jury cases)
J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Associates, 56 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2012) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Ecksel v. Orleans Const. Co., 519 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 1987) (credibility review principles)
McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 751 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of conversion)
Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 197 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1964) (conversion described as deprivation of possession without consent)
Martin v. National Sur. Corp., 262 A.2d 672 (Pa. 1970) (conversion by unreasonably withholding possession)
PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, 71 A.3d 304 (Pa. Super. 2013) (conversion principles)
Gutteridge v. J3 Energy Group, Inc., 165 A.3d 908 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of appellate review)