Opinion ID: 1212725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conversion and Replevin

Text: Noble asserts that Pandora and Alorica converted the hardware and software it sold to ACI. The elements of common law conversion are (1) the plaintiff has a property interest and (2) the defendant deprives the plaintiff of that interest. Olson v. Moorhead Country Club, 568 N.W.2d 871, 872 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (internal quotation omitted). A plaintiff's lack of an enforceable interest in the subject property is a complete defense against conversion. Lassen v. First Bank Eden Prairie, 514 N.W.2d 831, 838 (Minn.Ct. App.1994). The sale agreement between Noble and ACI, which Noble attached as Exhibit A to its complaint, states that title passed to ACI upon delivery. Therefore, the only interest in the property that Noble possessed was a security interest. Noble cannot dispute that Pandora possessed a higher priority security interest that allowed it to take title to the collateral and sell it. Because Noble possessed no property interest that it could enforce against Pandora or Alorica, its conversion claim fails. Replevin, like conversion, is a way to test the superiority of property rights, but with the ability to recover the property itself instead of damages. Widgren v. Massie, 352 N.W.2d 420, 424-25 (Minn.Ct. App.1984). Noble's replevin claim against Alorica fails for the same reasons as its conversion claim.