Opinion
CV146012728S
02-01-2017
Paul Nedovich v. Kimberly Brennan et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Edward S. Domnarski, J.
The plaintiff claims that in the spring of 2013 he delivered an oil painting valued at $14,500 to the defendants Kim Brennan (Kim) and Shawn Brennan (Shawn) so that they could sell it on his behalf. He further claims that, while in the possession of the defendants, the painting was damaged and that it has never been returned to him. The plaintiff also claims that he has never received any money for the painting from the defendants. A trial was conducted on November 3, 2016.
Kim, and her late husband, Steven Brennan (Steven)--Shawn's brother--operated a business known as Powder Mill Auctions, LLC (Powder Mill). The court finds that Steven took possession of the subject painting. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Steven took possession of the painting on behalf Powder Mill. In any event, Powder Mill is not a party to this action. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Kim was ever in possession or control of the painting prior to the time when it was allegedly damaged. The plaintiff is not entitled to judgment against Kim.
Shawn operated a business known as Quality Collectibles. Shawn and Steven worked together to sell items of personal property that they owned or held on consignment.
The plaintiff served a request for admissions directed to Shawn dated June 7, 2016. Shawn was asked to admit that, while the subject painting was in his custody and control, a woman damaged the painting by putting her foot through the painting while it was being displayed at an art auction in Massachusetts. Shawn never responded to this request for admission. Consequently, under our rules of practice, the matter in the requested admission is deemed to be admitted by Shawn. See Practice Book § 13-23(a). Furthermore, at the trial, Shawn acknowledged that the painting was damaged at an event held in Brimfield, Massachusetts, at which both Steven and Shawn were selling items to the public. Unfortunately, Steven died in 2014, and the plaintiff never made a claim against his estate.
The court finds that under the facts established a bailment was created in which the plaintiff was the bailor and Shawn was the bailee. " [A] bailment . . . involves a delivery of the thing bailed into the possession of the bailee, under a contract to return it to the owner according to the terms of the agreement." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Seedman v. Jaffer, 104 Conn. 222, 226, 132 A. 414 (1926), quoting Murray v. Paramount Petroleum & Products Co., 101 Conn. 238, 242, 125 A. 617 (1924). " A relationship of bailor-bailee arises when the owner, while retaining general title, delivers personal property to another for some particular purpose upon an express or implied contract to redeliver the goods when the purpose has been fulfilled, or to otherwise deal with the goods according to the bailor's directions." Maulding v. United States, 257 F.2d 56, 60, 17 Alaska 592 (9th Cir. 1958). " In bailment, the owner or bailor has a general property [interest] in the goods bailed . . ." McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. Walsh, 132 Conn. 158, 162, 42 A.2d 841 (1945). " The bailee, on the other hand, has mere possession of items left in its care pursuant to the bailment." B.A. Ballou & Co. v. Citytrust, 218 Conn. 749, 753, 591 A.2d 126 (1991).
" Once a bailment has been established and the bailee is unable to redeliver the subject of the bailment in an undamaged condition a presumption arises that the damage to or loss of the bailed property was the result of the bailee's negligence." Barnett Motor Transportation Co. v. Cummins Diesel Engines of Connecticut, Inc., 162 Conn. 59, 63, 291 A.2d 234 (1971).
Having established that Shawn is liable to the plaintiff for the loss of the painting, the court must determine an amount of damages based upon its value at the time of loss. The plaintiff testified that he paid $14,500 for the painting. The plaintiff also submitted an unsigned statement of sale from the seller, Brandon Gallery. The plaintiff did not submit any evidence of his payment for the painting, such as a cancelled check or a signed receipt. In response to the court's questions, the plaintiff could not state with any certainty when he obtained the statement of sale from the seller of the painting. The court does not find the plaintiff's testimony as to the value of the painting to be credible.
Shawn testified that he and the plaintiff agreed that Shawn and Steven would attempt to sell the painting for $8,000 at the Brimfield Fair, a large antiques market/fair held in Brimfield, Massachusetts. The subject painting was purportedly damaged at this event. The court finds Shawn's testimony that the parties agreed to attempt to sell the painting for $8,000 to be credible. The court further finds that this agreement between the parties establishes the value of the damaged and unreturned painting to be $8,000. The plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $8,000.
Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Nedovich, against the defendant, Shawn Brennan, in the amount $8,000. Shawn Brennan is ordered to make weekly payments in the amount of $35 commencing February 24, 2017.