Brookline Bank v. Richard S. Adams (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This replevin action was tried on March 17, 2011.   The plaintiff, Brookline Bank, was represented by counsel.   The defendant, Richard S. Adams, represented himself.

The defendant did not file a responsive pleading in this matter.   On March 8, 2011 the court granted the plaintiff's motion for default for failure to plead.   This had no practical impact on the hearing conducted.   The defendant presented evidence, testified and was fully heard.   The defendant also presented the court a two-page typed document which the court has considered as a post-trial brief.

Based upon the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings of fact.   On March 16, 2006 the defendant and CRS Electrical Systems LLC (“CRS”) purchased a 2006 Chevrolet Truck from Bennett Chevrolet–Buick LLC of New Milford and financed the purchase with a loan of $27,700.72 from the plaintiff.   The retail installment contract required the defendant and CRS to make 72 monthly payments of $510.89 each.   The defendant signed the retail installment contract as owner of CRS Electrical Systems LLC and personally as co-buyer.   The defendant made fairly regular payments of the loan from June 2006 until April 2010 when the payments stopped.

When the defendant was notified that the defendant would be accelerating the note if payments weren't made, the defendant sent the plaintiff a document entitled “Private Registered Bonded Promissory Note” (“PRBPN”) in the stated amount of “Fifteen thousand fifteen United States Dollars” allegedly in full payment of the balance due on the installment sales contract.

By certified letter dated August 20, 2010 the plaintiff notified the defendant that it would not accept the PRBPN as payment of the balance due and that it was accelerating the balance due on the loan.   This suit followed.   The current balance due on the loan is $11,944.71.

The only defense raised by the defendant at trial is that the balance on the installment sales contract has been paid in full ¹ by the transfer of the PRBPN to the plaintiff.   The PRBPN is a curious document.   It is printed on official-looking paper with an elaborate green border.   It contains a “DTC Routing Number” and a “DTC Account Number” both of which are noted to be “c/o Secretary Of The Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner.”   It notes that:  “This is a public debt obligation of the United States” but it is signed by the defendant.   Close reading of the document leads the court to conclude that it is a promissory note of the defendant in which he promises to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $15,015 in United States dollars on October 23, 2010.   It is an attempt to pay the original balance of the retail sales contract with another promissory note which will come due at a future date.

In support of that claim of payment, the defendant argues that the plaintiff is required to accept this promissory note as payment because promissory notes are legal tender of the United States.   The citations made by the defendant to the UCC and various other sources do not support this proposition.   The installment sales contract required the defendant to make payments in accordance with a fixed schedule.   The plaintiff had a right to insist upon payment in accordance with that schedule.   It was insufficient for the defendant to attempt to alter that payment schedule by substituting a new obligation to pay at a later date.   If the defendant's argument were accepted, he could forestall payment indefinitely by giving new promissory notes for payment in the future.   Therefore, the defendant's defense is rejected.

The retail installment sales contract provides that upon default the plaintiff may require the defendant to make the vehicle available to the plaintiff at a place designated by the plaintiff which is reasonably convenient to both parties.   The contract also provides for a procedure to be followed if the vehicle is repossessed.   It also provides that the defendant will pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees in the event of default.   The prayers for relief requested by the plaintiff are:  1) Possession of the motor vehicle described above in the complaint;  2) alternatively, if the motor vehicle cannot be replevied, money damages;  3) damages for wrongful detention of the motor vehicle;  4) costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, and 5) such other relief as the court shall deem just.

The plaintiff is entitled to the entry of judgment of replevin to obtain possession of the vehicle as requested.   The defendant is ordered to surrender possession of the vehicle on Friday April 1, 2011 at 10 a.m. at 295 Danbury Road in New Milford (the business now or formerly known as Bennett Chevrolet–Buick).   In addition, the plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $3,580 plus costs.   As an alternative remedy to replevin, the court awards money damages of $11,944.71 if the vehicle cannot be replevied.   The plaintiff has posted a bond of twice the value of the vehicle which is now released.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that the defense of payment should be made by special defense.  Practice Book Section 10–50.   The self-represented defendant did not file a special defense.   However, the plaintiff did not raise this defect as a bar to the admissibility of evidence concerning the PRBPN.   The court considers that the plaintiff waived this objection to evidence concerning the PRBPN..  FN1. The court notes that the defense of payment should be made by special defense.  Practice Book Section 10–50.   The self-represented defendant did not file a special defense.   However, the plaintiff did not raise this defect as a bar to the admissibility of evidence concerning the PRBPN.   The court considers that the plaintiff waived this objection to evidence concerning the PRBPN.

Pickard, John W., J.