Elaine LEONARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit2006-01-11No. No. 05-5103

163 Fed.Appx. 880

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in finding that Leonardo failed to establish the existence of a bailment contract with the government because the facility employee lacked authority to bind the government and there was no evidence of ratification by an authorized official. The judgment in favor of the government is affirmed.

Elaine Leonardo, an artist, left her artwork in storage at the American Cultural Center in Brussels after an exhibition in 1990. An employee of the facility agreed to keep the pieces stored there. Approximately six years later, during building renovations, a bulldozer operator destroyed the artwork while demolishing the storage area. Leonardo sued the federal government in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming she had entered into a bailment contract with the government and that the government breached it by allowing her property to be destroyed.

The Court of Federal Claims ruled against Leonardo on two independent grounds. First, the court found that although the facility employee agreed to store the artwork, he lacked the authority to bind the government to such an agreement without approval from his supervisor. Leonardo failed to prove that anyone with actual contracting authority on behalf of the government had accepted or ratified the storage arrangement. Second, even assuming a bailment contract had existed, Leonardo did not establish that the government bore legal responsibility for the artwork's destruction. The appellate court found no clear error in the trial court's factual findings and no legal error in its reasoning.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an employee's agreement to store property constitutes a binding contract with the government absent express or implied authority and ratification by an authorized official
Whether ratification of a contract requires demonstrated acceptance by someone with contracting authority
Burden of proof for establishing government liability in breach of contract claims

Procedural posture

Leonardo appealed the final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which was entered in favor of the government following a one-day trial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Elaine Leonardo appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims in her suit against the United States government for breach of a bailment contract. In its decision, which followed a trial, the court held that Ms. Leonardo had failed to establish the existence of a contract with the government. Leonardo v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 552, 554 & 579 (2005). In addition, the court found that, even assuming the existence of a bailment contract, Ms. Leonardo had failed to establish that the government was legally responsible for causing the loss of her property and therefore breached the contract. Id. at 579. The court therefore ordered entry of judgment in favor of the government and dismissal of Ms. Leonardo’s complaint. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Leonardo is a professional artist. Following the exhibition of some of her work at the American Cultural Center in Brussels, Belgium, in November of 1990, Jan Van Kerkhove, an employee of the facility, agreed to retain the artwork in storage at the Center. Approximately six years later, in December of 1996, a bulldozer operator performing renovations for the Cultural Center’s landlord destroyed the artwork while demolishing the portion of the building where it was stored.

In November of 2001, Ms. Leonardo filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims. In her suit, she alleged that she entered into a bailment contract with the government relating to her artwork and that the government breached the contract when it negligently allowed the artwork to be destroyed. Following a one-day trial, the Court of Federal Claims issued a lengthy decision in which it thoroughly considered the parties’ contentions and the issues in the case. Leonardo, 63 Fed.Cl. 552. As noted above, the court held that Ms. Leonardo had failed to establish the existence of a bailment contract with the government. Id. at 579. On that point, the court found that, although Mr. Kerkhove did agree to retain Ms. Leonardo’s artwork in storage, he did not have either express or implied authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the government without the approval of his supervisor, Mary Ann Ignatius. Id. at 557-59. Critically, the court determined that Ms. Leonardo failed to carry her burden of establishing that Ms. Ignatius or any other individual with contracting authority ratified her agreement with Mr. Kerkhove. Id. at 560-70. As noted above, the court also found that, even assuming the existence of a bailment contract, Ms. Leonardo had failed to carry her burden of establishing that the government was legally responsible for causing the loss of her artwork. Id. at 570-79.

II.

We have jurisdiction over Ms. Leonardo’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Following a trial, we review the factual findings of the Court of Federal Claims for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Am. Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004). On appeal, Ms. Leonardo broadly, but without specific citation to relevant errors in law or fact, attacks the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. She simply argues that the court erred because she had a bailment contract with the government and that her artwork was negligently or intentionally destroyed or stolen, breaching that contract.

Contrary to Ms. Leonardo’s assertions, we see no error in the decision of the Court of Federal Claims that Ms. Leonardo failed to establish the existence of a bailment contract with the government relating to the storage of her artwork at the Cultural Center. After a trial, the Court of Federal Claims made credibility determinations and factual findings. The court found that Ms. Leonardo was not a credible witness on the issue of ratification, and that there was no other evidence to support her assertion that Ms. Ignatius or any other individual with contracting authority ratified any agreement with Mr. Kerkhove. Ms. Leonardo has not provided us with any basis for disturbing the court’s factual findings.

Neither is the decision of the Court of Federal Claims tainted by legal error. As this court recognized in Harbert/Lummus Agrifuels Projects v. United States, ratification must be based on a demonstrated acceptance of a contract. 142 F.3d 1429, 1433-34 (Fed.Cir.1998) (finding that even if the government officer did have the authority to enter into a contract, it did not ratify the contract because there was no acceptance of the contract). Based on the facts of this case, there was no such ratification of any contract between Ms. Leonardo and Mr. Kerkhove.

Because the Court of Federal Claims did not err in ruling that Ms. Leonardo failed to establish the existence of a bailment contract with the government, it is not necessary for us to address the issue of whether the government was legally responsible for the loss of Ms. Leonardo’s artwork.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

Each party shall bear its own costs.