Payne v. TK Auto Wholesalers
911 A.2d 747, 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 495, 98 Conn.App. 533 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person in possession of stolen property has a possessory interest superior to everyone except for those with a better title (such as the true owner), and this interest is sufficient to establish standing to sue a third party for its wrongful retention.
Facts:
- Tyrone E. Payne stole the identity of his cousin, Paul Payne, and used it to withdraw money from his cousin's bank account.
- On February 7, 2003, Payne went to TK Auto Wholesalers to purchase a Lincoln Mark VIII automobile.
- Payne presented himself to employee Michael Robson as 'Paul Payne,' providing a driver's license with his cousin's name.
- Although Robson noted the photograph on the license did not resemble Payne, he proceeded with the transaction.
- Payne gave Robson $1300 in cash, which he had obtained illicitly, as a down payment on the vehicle.
- After Payne left, Robson confirmed with the real Paul Payne that his identity had been stolen and contacted the police.
- At the instruction of the police, Robson lured Payne back to the dealership under the pretense of completing the transaction.
- When Payne returned and began filling out registration forms, he was arrested by police. TK Auto Wholesalers retained the $1300 down payment.
Procedural Posture:
- While incarcerated, Tyrone E. Payne filed a pro se civil action against TK Auto Wholesalers in the trial court.
- The complaint alleged statutory theft, unconscionability of contract, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
- During proceedings, the trial court learned that Payne had admitted to stealing the money used for the down payment.
- The defendant argued that Payne lacked standing to sue for the return of money he did not rightfully own.
- The trial court agreed, finding that Payne had no possessory interest in the money, and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff, Tyrone E. Payne, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the appellate 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 a plaintiff who obtained money through theft have a sufficient possessory interest in that money to establish standing to sue a third party who accepted and retained it?
Opinions:
Majority - Gruendel, J.
Yes. A plaintiff who obtained money through theft has a sufficient possessory interest to establish standing. Under the well-settled common law rule, a person in possession of property, even stolen property, has an ownership interest superior to the world at large, save for one with a better claim to the property. The question of standing does not involve an inquiry into the merits of the case or the character of the plaintiff; it merely requires a colorable claim of injury to a legally protected interest. Here, Payne's possession of the money, regardless of how it was obtained, gave him a possessory interest superior to that of the defendant, TK Auto Wholesalers. The defendant cannot defeat standing by asserting the rights of a third party (the true owner of the money), as the defendant has no superior title itself. The plaintiff alleged a direct injury—the loss of the $1300 he possessed—which is sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the traditional common law distinction between standing and the merits of a claim. It establishes that the threshold jurisdictional question of standing focuses only on the relationship between the parties before the court, not on the plaintiff's potentially illegal conduct toward non-parties. The decision prevents defendants from using a plaintiff's 'unclean hands' as a shield to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, clarifying that such equitable defenses relate to the merits, not standing. This precedent reinforces the principle that possession itself is a legally protected interest, ensuring that disputes are resolved based on the relative rights of the litigants rather than allowing a windfall for a defendant who is also a wrongdoer.
