Litchfield County Auctions, Inc. v. Brideau
| Decision Date | 03 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | LLICV156012328S |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Litchfield County Auctions, Inc. v. John Brideau et al. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Shaban, Dan, J.
The plaintiff, Litchfield County Auctions, Inc. (LCA), has brought this action through its second amended complaint (#147) relative to its purchase of sixteen paintings known collectively as the "Savage Collection" whose ownership and possession was subsequently challenged by several parties. Those paintings remain in the custody of the plaintiff who now seeks a declaratory judgment as to the ownership rights to the paintings as well as other claims for relief amongst various defendants based on allegations of fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of oral and written warranties, breach of contract and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. A revised amended cross claim and counterclaim (#164) has been brought by the defendants Walter T. Crawford a/k/a Ted Crawford (Ted Crawford) and Julianna Crawford (collectively, the Crawfords) who also are also requesting a declaratory judgment in addition to alleging unjust enrichment, CUTPA violations, conversion and civil theft against various codefendants.
More specifically, LCA pleaded eight counts with the first count seeking a declaratory judgment as to all parties; John Brideau (Brideau), the Crawfords, Howard Godel (Godel), Godel & Company (Godel & Co.), Philip Bambino (Bambino), Nicholas Palma (Palma) and Steven Francia (Francia). The second count alleges fraud as to Godel, Godel & Co., Bambino, Palma and Francia. The third count sets forth a claim of unjust enrichment against Godel and Godel & Co. The fourth count alleges a breach of written warranty as to Palma. The fifth count alleges misrepresentations on the part of Bambino, Palma, and Francia that constitute a breach of oral warranty. The sixth count, which alleges breach of contract, and the seventh count, unjust enrichment, are directed at the same three defendants. The eighth count alleges a violation of CUTPA as to Godel, Godel & Co., Bambino, Palma and Francia.
The Crawfords pleaded five counts in their counterclaim and cross claims. The first count seeks a declaratory judgment against all parties. Counts two through five are addressed to Godel, Godel & Co., Bambino, Palma and Francia. The second count alleges unjust enrichment, the third count a violation of CUTPA, the fourth count conversion and the fifth count civil theft.
Godel and Godel & Co. collectively filed multiple special defenses to both LCA’s counts and those brought by the Crawfords including, but not limited to, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unclean hands, failure to mitigate damages, equitable estoppel, and a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Bambino, Palma and Francia were all defaulted for failure to plead by the Crawfords on February 5, 2019, which was the first day of trial. See orders #202.10, 203.10, 204.10.
The matter was tried to the court on February 5 and 6, 2019, and March 26 and 27, 2019. Thereafter, on May 17, 2019, LCA, the Crawfords and Godel and Godel & Co. filed post-hearing memoranda as directed by the court.
From the credible evidence presented at trial, the court finds the following facts. Eugene Savage (Savage) is the artist who produced the paintings that are at issue. These paintings among others made by Savage, were inherited by Dorothy Ann Crawford upon Savage’s death in the late 1970s. Dorothy Ann Crawford was Savage’s sister and Ted Crawford’s mother. The paintings were gifted to the Crawfords prior to 1999 by Dorothy Ann Crawford. Pl. Exs. 6, 67. The sixteen paintings at issue are collectively known as the Savage Collection. Each individual painting is referenced by title and other identifier as follows:
Def. Ex. X; Pl. Exs. 41, 67.
During their ownership, the Crawfords, who live in Woodbury, Connecticut, sold various pieces of art they had inherited through art dealers and gave away others as gifts. Approximately six times from 2005 to 2009, the Crawfords consigned certain pieces of art to Brideau to sell on their behalf. Most of the pieces they owned did not have any documentation establishing ownership as much of the paperwork had been lost in a house fire years before. Though the testimony of Julianna Crawford was sometimes a bit inconsistent, the court finds credible her statements that the sixteen paintings listed above were at one point or another during this period given to Brideau to sell on behalf of the Crawfords. For example, they entered into an agreement with Brideau dated July 10, 2009, to have various pieces of art sold through him on their behalf. Pl. Exs. 9, 66. A number of the items listed in that agreement were from the Savage Collection.[1]
At some point following the submission of the sixteen paintings to Brideau, the Crawfords individually sold the paintings numbered 1 through 5, 7 and 8 to Brideau. Pl. Exs. 7, 41. The Crawfords continued to retain ownership of paintings numbered 6 and 9 through 16.[2] Id. Several years then passed without any information being exchanged between the parties about the status of the paintings. It was not until late January 2015 that the Crawfords were alerted by Brideau that he had seen all sixteen items being offered by LCA both through an on-line auction and physical auction. Brideau explained to the Crawfords that he did not know how LCA had come into possession of the paintings and that he had advised, in person, Weston Thorn, who was the founder and co-owner of LCA, that LCA did not have any authority from him or the Crawfords to possess or auction the paintings and that they should be returned. After viewing the paintings online to confirm that these were the ones they had long ago given to Brideau, the Crawfords also called LCA’s president, Nick Thorn, and advised him that the Crawfords owned the paintings and wanted them returned to them. LCA then brought this action to clear title.
To say the path which the paintings took to come into LCA’s possession was through a complete lack of diligence by multiple parties, conflicting self-interests, questionable business practices and equally questionable personal choices and conduct would not be enough to fully characterize what transpired. Simply put, this is a tortured mess that even the best of laws are ill-equipped to clean up. By comparison, this case would make a Jackson Pollack painting look like a stellar example of linear geometry. To try to figure out this picture, the court begins by returning to the purported consignment of the paintings to Brideau by the Crawfords. Brideau’s efforts to sell the Savage Collection were unsuccessful for quite a period of time. As noted above, Brideau eventually purchased from the Crawfords seven of the paintings. In marketing the paintings, he offered all sixteen as a package for sale or further consignment. Ultimately, he elected to seek the assistance of John Lameray (Lameray), an individual who had bought and sold artwork during his lifetime. There was no evidence of a consignment agreement between them either written or oral. Sometime in November 2013, after having taken possession of the paintings from Brideau, Lameray brought them to Godel with whom he had occasionally done business in the past. Pl. Ex. 63R, pp. 19-22. Godel was the president of Godel & Co., which was located in New York City and was engaged in the business of buying and selling artwork. Although organized under New York law and located in Manhattan, the company does business in all fifty states. It specifically states on its website that the business has relationships with customers and art galleries in Connecticut. Godel himself testified that Godel & Co. does business in Connecticut and had records of doing so on a regular basis from 2006 well into 2016. Pl. Ex. 63R, pp. 10, 85.
Although Godel had a prior history of doing business with Lameray, by November 2013, he had become wary of him. He described Lameray and his brother, Damien Lameray,[3] as "drug addicts who never had any money." In July or August 2012, Lameray took a painting by Frank Anderson (Anderson painting) from Godel & Co. as part of a business transaction. The painting was valued between $45,000 and $55,000, but Lameray never paid for it.[4] Because of this, Godel had developed concerns about Lameray’s reliability and credibility. Id., pp. 37, 59, 114-15. Despite these concerns, at the time Godel took possession of the Savage Collection, he believed that they were owned by Lameray. Also, while it was Godel & Co.’s normal practice to receive proof of ownership and execute a consignment agreement, Godel did neither. Although Godel gave conflicting testimony as to whether there was a consignment agreement with Lameray, the court finds that Godel & Co., through Godel, accepted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial