Martin v. Briggs
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10789, 663 N.Y.S.2d 184, 235 A.D.2d 192 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a bailment for an indefinite duration, the statute of limitations for a conversion claim does not begin to run until the bailor makes a demand for the property's return and the bailee refuses. A bailment can also be created by operation of law (constructive bailment) when a person lawfully comes into possession of another's property and has a duty to account for it.
Facts:
- In 1967, artist Agnes Martin entered into an agreement with Arthur (Kim) Blood and/or his wife Lois Luce Blood to store her paintings indefinitely in exchange for the Bloods residing in her Manhattan loft.
- The Bloods stored the paintings, eventually moving them to their home in Sherman, Connecticut.
- In 1972, Martin retrieved some paintings, with the understanding that the Bloods would continue to store the remainder until she demanded their return.
- Kim Blood died in 1972, and his wife Lois continued to store the paintings without displaying them or treating them as her own.
- In 1988, Lois Blood allegedly made a gift of the paintings to her daughters from a previous marriage, Gwen Luce Briggs and Jean Davis.
- Lois Blood died in 1991, and her daughter, Briggs, took possession of the paintings and placed them in a storage facility.
- In 1995, Briggs consigned the paintings to Sotheby's auction house for sale.
- Sotheby's contacted Martin to authenticate the work, which was the first time Martin learned that Briggs and Davis were claiming ownership. Martin then demanded the paintings' return.
Procedural Posture:
- Agnes Martin sued Gwen Luce Briggs and Jean Davis in the Supreme Court of New York County (trial court) to recover possession of her paintings.
- Briggs and Davis moved for summary judgment, arguing Martin's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Briggs and Davis, dismissing the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, finding the bailment was only with the deceased Kim Blood.
- Martin, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statute of limitations for a conversion claim involving a bailment of indefinite duration begin to run upon the death of the original bailee, or only after the property owner makes a demand for its return and that demand is refused by the successor in possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J. P.
No. The statute of limitations for a conversion claim on a bailment of indefinite duration begins to run only upon a demand by the bailor and a refusal by the person in possession, not automatically upon the death of an original bailee. The lower court erred by granting summary judgment because numerous triable issues of fact exist. A key factual dispute is whether the original bailment included Lois Blood and whether she, and subsequently her daughters, became constructive bailees by operation of law. A constructive bailment arises from the lawful possession of another's property and the duty to account for it, regardless of a formal contract. The actions of Lois Blood and her daughters after Kim Blood's death were consistent with a continuing bailment, not ownership. Therefore, Martin's cause of action for conversion did not accrue until her demand was refused in 1995, and the reasonableness of her delay in making that demand is a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional 'demand and refusal' rule for the accrual of conversion claims in indefinite bailments, providing significant protection to property owners. It clarifies that the death of an original bailee does not, by itself, terminate the bailment or trigger the statute of limitations. The court's emphasis on the doctrine of constructive bailment shows that legal obligations to care for property can be imposed on successors in possession even without their express consent, based on their conduct. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants in such cases to win on a summary judgment motion based on a statute of limitations defense where the facts surrounding the possession are in dispute.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. Briggs