Boyfriend Not Entitled to Damages for Car Gifted to Girlfriend
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Accident & Injury Personal Injury
Summary: Blog post about a man who was denied recovery from an ex-girlfriend who was awarded damages in a car accident case because the car was a gift to her and she did not steal it.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Boyfriend's application for prejudgment garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d was denied because the trial court, based upon the evidence, found probable cause to believe that it would be found that a car was a gift from the boyfriend to his girlfriend, that it was not converted, and that judgment would not enter in favor of the boyfriend.
Plaintiff boyfriend filed an application for prejudgment garnishment, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d, from defendant girlfriend's interest in the eventual proceeds or recovery from an insurance company in the girlfriend's personal injury claim arising out of a two-car motor vehicle accident.
The boyfriend alleged that the girlfriend wrongfully refused to return the boyfriend's car after their romantic relationship ended. The boyfriend, who proposed a lawsuit based on a cause of action for conversion, sought to garnish the proceeds the girlfriend would receive from an insurance company on a personal injury claim by the girlfriend. The court, based upon the title documents establishing ownership of the car in the girlfriend and the corroborated testimony of witnesses showing the boyfriend's intent to make a gift of the car to the girlfriend, found probable cause to believe that it would be found that the car was a gift to the girlfriend, that it was not converted, and that judgment would not enter in favor of the boyfriend. Furthermore, the court would not approve a prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-12(d) in aid of an effort to effectuate an illegal agreement regarding the misrepresentation of the registration of the vehicle. Finally, the girlfriend's assertion of a tort claim against the insurance company was not a debt that could be garnished under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-329.
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: Sipes v. Serrano, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1951 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 25, 2007)