Claiming it was the true owner of certain real property, Van Sharma, Inc. sued George A. Chamberlain based on a "constructive trust" theory. (Van Sharma also wanted certain monies returned and asked for an accounting of all funds Chamberlain received.)
In response, Chamberlain countered that he was the one that was owed money. And when Van Sharma neglected to respond to that claim and also didn't comply with court orders relating to the production of documents, the Monroe County Supreme Court ultimately found in Chamberlain's favor.
While Van Sharma argued that its responsive papers had been lost in the mail, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, didn't buy that excuse (because it hadn't been "corroborated" and thus wasn't a reasonable basis upon which to excuse the company's "default"). In any event, the court looked at what was allegedly sent and viewed that response as "insufficient."
Now was that really constructive?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: Van Sharma, Inc. v. Chamberlain