Leonard

INTRODUCTION

The primary issue in this appeal is whether respondent Elliott Leonard waited too long to sue appellant Peter Waterloo to recover 14 pieces of art. Waterloo asserted these art works were gifts, given to him over several years with no expectation of their return. Leonard insisted he had lent the works to Waterloo, who then refused to return them on demand. After a two-day bench trial, the court found in Leonard’s favor, largely on credibility grounds. It held the art works were loans, not gifts, and ordered Waterloo to return them, or, if they were no longer in his possession, to pay Leonard their cash value. Waterloo appeals from the judgment on the ground the limitations period had expired on Leonard’s claims to have the property returned. He points to allegations in the second amended complaint as judicial admissions establishing a trigger for the limitations period that, according to him, ran out before Leonard filed suit. He also advances the related argument that Leonard waited too long to make his demand for return of the art pieces. We affirm the judgment. The court correctly determined the limitations period did not start to run until Leonard demanded the…