Stamatopoulos v. All Seasons Contracting, Inc.
2020 Ohio 566
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Mark Fourtounis operated All Seasons businesses; after bankruptcy he sold equipment to Evangelos Stamatopoulos via an asset purchase; Stamatopoulos pledged his NYC apartment and received loans from Nikolas and Marika Fourtounis to complete the purchase.
- Parties later signed a March 30, 2012 settlement agreement and a cognovit promissory note (secured by a Volvo "Super Sucker" vacuum truck and other equipment); Stamatopoulos claimed he signed under duress.
- Stamatopoulos obtained a prejudgment order of possession (replevin) for many pieces of equipment without posting a bond; the Fourtounises challenged the seizure and separately sought confession of judgment on the cognovit note.
- At trial the jury found Stamatopoulos failed to prove duress, and (via a Section 1983 counterclaim submitted to the jury) awarded the Fourtounises $100,000 for an alleged unconstitutional seizure; the trial court then ordered performance of the settlement and directed turnover of titles and equipment.
- On appeal the court held the Fourtounises’ Section 1983 claim should not have been submitted to the jury (no actionable §1983 claim against a private party under these facts), vacated the $100,000 judgment and the specific-performance orders directing turnover/return of the Super Sucker and seized Van Epps property, affirmed the directed verdict dismissing Stamatopoulos’s conversion claim, and affirmed denial of attorney fees and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly instructed the jury that the replevin seizure was unconstitutional and submitted a §1983 claim to the jury | Stamatopoulos: instruction was plain error; seizure pursuant to valid replevin order was not unconstitutional | Fourtounises: R.C. replevin requires bond; lack of bond made the seizure unconstitutional and supported §1983 liability | Court: §1983 claim failed as a matter of law (private misuse of statute, not a state-action constitutional violation); submission of the §1983 claim and $100,000 verdict vacated |
| Whether directed verdict on Stamatopoulos’s conversion claim was erroneous | Stamatopoulos: presented evidence of dominion and refusal to return property | Appellees: no adequate demand-refusal (they offered to meet to exchange property) | Court: directed verdict proper—demand and refusal were insufficient; assignment overruled |
| Whether trial court properly ordered money judgment and specific performance (turnover of titles/equipment) after jury verdict | Stamatopoulos: court abused discretion by entering money judgment then ordering specific performance | Appellees: enforcement of settlement and note was appropriate after duress failure | Court: because §1983 verdict was vacated and no finding of breach was made, the court vacated the portions ordering turnover/return of seized property but left the parties bound to the settlement agreement itself |
| Whether appellees were entitled to attorney fees or new trial on damages | Appellees: fees are recoverable for violation of the settlement; Global seeks new trial because jury failed to award damages | Stamatopoulos: jury verdict controls; no breach established; no entitlement to fees | Court: no abuse of discretion in denying fees (jury did not award fees and no breach was determined); denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio App.3d 401 (2008) (elements of a §1983 claim and requirement of state action)
- Berger v. Mayfield Hts., 265 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001) (§1983 elements and analysis)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (2006) (standard for reviewing directed verdicts)
- Tabar v. Charlie’s Towing Serv., Inc., 97 Ohio App.3d 423 (1994) (definition of conversion)
- Bench Billboard Co. v. Columbus, 63 Ohio App.3d 421 (1989) (conversion principles)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Stamatopoulos v. All Seasons Contr., 104 N.E.3d 1001 (8th Dist. 2018) (prior appellate decision reversing and remanding for clarification)
- Kavalec v. Ohio Express, Inc., 71 N.E.3d 660 (2016) (demand-and-refusal rule in conversion claims)