Name
Class Title/Section Number
Date

Lindholm v. Brant, 283 Conn. 65 (2007).

Facts:
Malmberg, a Swedish art dealer, served as an art advisor to the plaintiff and her husband throughout their 30 year marriage as well as handled all of their purchase and sales transactions for works of art. The plaintiff purchased Red Elvis, the painting in question, in 1987 for $300,000 from Malmberg and relied on him to complete this transaction. In 1989, the plaintiff loaned Red Elvis to the Museum of Modern Art in New York, with the help of Malmberg. While at the museum, Red Elvis had a label attached, stating that the painting was owned by a private collector and was loaned to the museum. The defendant was aware of this label and became aware that Malmberg was associated with it after viewing the painting. In 1996 Guggenheim Museum wanted to sponsor an exhibition that included Red Elvis and the defendant, who was a member of the board of trustees, was asked to assist in obtaining the painting for a loan. To obtain this painting, the defendant knew that Malmberg was associated with Red Elvis and that two of his colleagues, Holm and Mayer, had prior dealings with Malmberg. Therefore, the defendant suggested Holm and Mayer contact Malmberg for assistance in obtaining the artwork for a loan. The plaintiff agreed to lend Red Elvis to the exhibition with the request that the identification plague read that it was part of a private collection. In 1998 during the plaintiff’s divorce proceedings, the plaintiff enlisted Malmberg to help her sell certain works of art and listed him as her agent in 1999. The plaintiff and Malmberg never discussed which pieces where for sell. Simultaneously, Malmberg advised Holm and the defendant that Malmberg had purchased Red Elvis and Malmberg asked the defendant if he would be interested in purchasing it, which the defendant indicated that he would. The defendant agreed to pay Malmberg $2.9 million dollars for Red Elvis and Malmberg gave the defendant an invoice for the piece indicating a $900,000 deposit would be required immediately. The defendant conducted a lien search prior to a formal contract for the complete sale of the painting, however, no claim or lien was revealed by the plaintiff and her husband on Red Elvis. The defendant’s attorney cautioned the defendant that with lien searches only minimal assurances were provided that Malmberg held good title to the painting. Due to concerns of the defendant of the potential claims on the property, Holms prepared a letter to be signed by the plaintiff stating that she had good standing when she sold the painting to Malmberg, yet, the letter was never signed by the plaintiff. After ending the Guggenheim exhibit early, the plaintiff notified the museum that the painting was to be released to the custody of Malmberg and followed up with a letter advising of such in February 2000. In April 2000, the defendant wired the remaining $2 million dollars to Malmberg and took possession of Red Elvis. In the fall of 2000, the plaintiff authorized sale of Red Elvis for $4.6 million dollars to a Japanese buyer. When the plaintiff agreed to sell she thought she still owned Red Elvis and was unaware that Malmberg had already sold the painting to the defendant in March 2000; however while reading a magazine in 2001, the plaintiff became aware that the defendant had purchased Red Elvis from Malmberg. After contacting Malmberg, Malmberg told the plaintiff via phone that the article was inaccurate and that the defendant had bought a different painting. After one year of unsuccessful attempts to get the sale proceeds from Malmberg, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the defendant stating that the sale of Red Elvis had not been authorized by the plaintiff and if the painting was not returned then actions would be commenced against the defendant. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging conversion, conspiracy to commit fraud, statutory theft and unjust enrichment