Stamatopoulos v. ECS North America, LLC, 172 Conn. App. 92

In 2009 several Ohio companies (the "Ohio businesses") held title to a piece of heavy machinery called a Tag‑A‑Long; they assigned title to Erie Painting and Maintenance, Inc. (Erie) in December 2009.
The Ohio businesses filed bankruptcy in June 2010; in June 2011 the plaintiff, Evangelos Stamatopoulos, purchased the Ohio businesses’ assets under an asset purchase agreement that only transferred assets the businesses still owned at the date of bankruptcy and contained caveats about completeness of the schedules.
Erie sold the Tag‑A‑Long to ECS North America, LLC (the defendant) in May 2012 for $100,000.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in January 2014 for conversion and replevin, alleging the Tag‑A‑Long was among the assets he purchased in 2011.
After a bench trial the trial court found (1) the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the Tag‑A‑Long as of the bankruptcy date and (2) the defendant was a good‑faith purchaser for value under the UCC; judgment entered for the defendant.
On appeal the plaintiff challenged only the court’s good‑faith purchaser ruling; the appellate court deemed the appeal moot because the unchallenged finding that the plaintiff had not proven ownership independently disposed of both causes of action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved ownership of the Tag‑A‑Long at time of bankruptcy	Stamatopoulos argued the 2011 asset purchase included the Tag‑A‑Long	Defendant contended the asset sale conveyed only assets still owned at bankruptcy and that plaintiff never obtained proper Ohio title	Court found plaintiff failed to prove ownership; appellate court treated this finding as unchallenged and dispositive
Whether defendant was a good‑faith purchaser for value under the UCC	Plaintiff argued trial court erred in finding defendant a good‑faith purchaser	Defendant asserted it purchased from Erie in good faith for value and raised that as a special defense	Trial court found defendant was a good‑faith purchaser; plaintiff appealed that ruling but appeal was moot because of ownership holding
Whether an appellate reversal on good‑faith purchaser would provide practical relief	Plaintiff contended reversal on good faith would affect rights to the Tag‑A‑Long	Defendant argued independent, unchallenged ownership finding would still defeat plaintiff’s claims	Appellate court held reversal would afford no practical relief; appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn. App. 297 (2007) (conversion requires a legal or possessory interest in the property)
Cornelio v. Stamford Hospital, 246 Conn. 45 (1998) (replevin requires proof of a property interest)
Horenian v. Washington, 128 Conn. App. 91 (2011) (mootness analysis focuses on whether successful appeal would provide practical relief)
Braffman v. Bank of America Corp., 297 Conn. 501 (2010) (special defense can provide an independent basis to defeat a plaintiff’s claim)