## Facts

- In May 2008, Michael Mezo checked out nine books from the Warren County Public Library, due in June 2008.
- Later in May 2008, Mezo moved from Kentucky to Illinois before returning the books.
- Mezo asked his mother to return the books to the library on his behalf.
- Mezo’s mother placed the books in a box on her back porch and did not return them to the library.
- The books were stolen from the porch; Mezo’s mother filed a police report listing the library as the victim.
- In August 2008, the library sent Mezo notice that the books were overdue.
- Mezo informed the library that the books had been stolen, but he did not pay the library for the value of the books.
- The library referred the matter to a collection agency, and the delinquency was reported in a way that affected Mezo’s credit report.
- In February 2009, Mezo sued the library in Warren Circuit Court, alleging (among other theories) breach of contract, defamation, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
- The library moved to dismiss, and the circuit court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, reasoning that the checkout transaction created a bailment and that Mezo remained responsible for the loss under the applicable standard of care.
- Mezo appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Did the circuit court err by granting judgment on the pleadings under Kentucky CR 12.03 (rather than converting the matter to summary judgment) based on the materials and admissions in the complaint?
2. Did the checkout of library books create a bailment relationship between the library (bailor) and Mezo (bailee), rather than only a contract limited to Mezo’s claimed “lost or damaged” language on the library card?
3. On the facts pleaded, did the theft of the books from Mezo’s mother’s porch relieve Mezo of liability to the library for failure to return the books?
4. If Mezo remained liable for the books, did he state viable claims for breach of contract, defamation, or FCRA violations based on collection activity and credit reporting?

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Mezo’s complaint.
- The court held the circuit court properly proceeded under CR 12.03 because it relied on facts Mezo alleged or admitted in his pleadings, leaving questions of law for decision.
- The court agreed that the library-book checkout created a bailment relationship requiring the books to be returned or accounted for.
- Given the pleaded circumstances—Mezo’s transfer of the books to his mother and the unsecured storage on a porch—the theft did not eliminate Mezo’s responsibility for the loss under bailment principles.
- Because the underlying obligation to the library was valid on the pleaded facts, Mezo could not establish falsity necessary for his defamation theory or inaccuracy necessary for his FCRA-based theory, and his contract theory did not avoid bailment liability.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment on the pleadings under Kentucky CR 12.03 is appropriate when the controlling facts are not disputed on the pleadings and only questions of law remain; appellate review is de novo.
- A bailment arises when personal property is delivered to another and must be returned to the owner or otherwise accounted for when the purpose of the delivery ends.
- A library’s lending of books to a patron may create a bailor–bailee relationship, with the patron obligated to return the books or answer for their loss under the governing standard of care.
- In a bailment for the benefit of the borrower, the bailee may be held to a high standard of care; failure to safeguard the property can support liability even when the loss occurs through theft.
- Defamation claims based on debt collection or credit reporting require a false statement; when the pleaded facts show the debt is owed, the “falsity” element is not met.
- FCRA-based claims premised on inaccurate credit information fail where the pleaded facts establish the reported delinquency is not inaccurate.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on the pleadings because Mezo’s own allegations established a bailment created by the library checkout, and the theft from his mother’s porch—after he chose to entrust the books to her and they were left unsecured—did not excuse nonreturn or eliminate his obligation to account for the loss; with the debt treated as valid on the pleadings, Mezo’s contract, defamation, and FCRA theories failed as a matter of law.


Mezo v. Warren County Public Library, 2010 WL 323302 (2010)