The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Business Law

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3914

AC41931 - Professional Electrical Contractors of Connecticut, Inc. v. Stamford Hospital ("The plaintiff, Professional Electrical Contractors of Connecticut, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) and Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in rendering summary judgment on counts two and three of its complaint because there were genuine issues of material facts and neither defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that (1) Skanska failed to prove that there existed no issues of material fact on the plaintiff's equitable claim of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, and (2) neither defendant established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's bond claim because the claim is viable pursuant to General Statutes §§ 49-33 and 49-36. We agree with the plaintiff on both claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Interpleader Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3879

AC41922 - Starboard Resources, Inc. v. Henry ("In this interpleader action, the Imbruce parties appeal from the trial court's interlocutory judgment of interpleader. On appeal, the Imbruce parties claim that the trial court (1) does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this interpleader action because the plaintiff, Starboard Resources, Inc., lacks standing, (2) erroneously denied the defendant Giddings Investments, LLC's motion to dismiss this interpleader action as moot, (3) improperly rendered the interlocutory judgment of interpleader, and (4) erroneously granted a motion to remand the matter to the arbitrator who had entered an award in an arbitration involving the Imbruce parties and the SOSventures parties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3803

AC41546 - Starboard Fairfield Development, LLC v. Gremp ("In this action arising out of a dispute over real estate investments and the disentanglement of business relationships, the defendants William C. Gremp and W C Gremp, LLC (WCG) appeal, following a bench trial, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Starboard Fairfield Development, LLC (Starboard), and RR One, LLC (RR One), on counts alleging breach of a general release, slander of title, intentional interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of a promissory note. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) determined that they breached a general release with Starboard by pursuing a civil action against the plaintiffs, (2) found that they slandered RR One's title to certain property by recording a lis pendens and an affidavit of fact pertaining to that property on the Bridgeport land records, (3) found that they intentionally interfered with RR One's contract to sell the property to a third party, (4) awarded RR One interest on $5000 that RR One was forced to hold in escrow due to the defendants' actions, and (5) awarded punitive damages without providing the defendants with adequate notice of a hearing in accordance with Practice Book §§ 7-5, 14-7, and 14-20. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the defendants' claims are either inadequately briefed or wholly unpersuasive on the basis of the record presented, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3795

SC19940 - Saunders v. Briner ("This appeal requires us to consider five issues: (1) whether, in the absence of authorization in a limited liability company's operating agreement, its members or managers lack standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of it under either the Connecticut Limited Liability Company Act (CLLCA), General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 34-100 et seq., or, in the alternative, the common law; (2) whether a trial court may exempt single member limited liability companies from the direct and separate injury requirement necessary to bring a direct action; (3) under what circumstances may a trial court admit opinion testimony of a joint, court-appointed fiduciary hired to wind up the companies at issue when the party who proffered the testimony of the fiduciary failed to disclose him as an expert witness under Practice Book § 13-4; (4) under what circumstances, if any, may the trial court apportion its award of attorney's fees under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., between the plaintiff's CUTPA claims and non-CUTPA claims; and (5) the parameters under which a trial court may order reimbursement for fees incurred by a joint, court-appointed fiduciary hired to wind up the companies at issue. The defendants, Clark Briner and two entities solely owned by Briner, a Connecticut limited liability company and a Texas limited liability company with the same name, Revere Capital, LLC (respectively, Revere Capital CT and Revere Capital TX), appeal, following a bench trial, from the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff, Roger L. Saunders, cross appeals from the trial court's judgment. We reverse the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff as to his derivative claims because we conclude that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring them under the CLLCA or the common law. We, therefore, do not reach the issues of whether the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of a joint, court-appointed fiduciary or whether the trial court incorrectly apportioned the plaintiff's award of attorney's fees under CUTPA. We affirm the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff as to his direct claims and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for the fees incurred by the joint, court-appointed fiduciary and an accountant hired by him.")

SC20066 - Wiederman v. Halpert ("PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, commenced this action arising out of a real estate investment agreement with the defendants Issac Halpert and Marsha Halpert, seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. After the trial court rendered a judgment of default against the defendants for failing to appear at a trial management conference, it held a hearing to determine damages. On the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff at that hearing, at which the defendants also failed to appear, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $600,892.58 in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. Thereafter, the defendants moved to open the judgment rendered against them and to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing it. The trial court, noting both that the defendants received multiple notices to new and old addresses and that Issac Halpert failed to appear and to testify at the hearing on damages despite being personally served by subpoena, denied their motion. The defendants then appealed from the trial court's denial of their motion to open, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because the alleged injuries sustained by her were derivative of the harm suffered by the limited liability companies of which she and the defendants were members, and, as such, the plaintiff lacked standing to recover directly. See Wiederman v. Halpert, 178 Conn. App. 783, 793, 176 A.3d 1242 (2017). The Appellate Court rejected the defendants' claim, concluding that, because the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from that suffered by the limited liability companies—as she alleged, among other things, that the defendants forged her signature on certain financial documents—the trial court had properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over her direct claims. See id., 797–98. We granted the defendants' petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the determination of the trial court that the plaintiff had standing to sue?" Wiederman v. Halpert, 328 Conn. 906, 177 A.3d 1161 (2018).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3782

AC40592 - R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. v. Clark ("In this case involving the buyout of minority shares of a closely held corporation, the plaintiff, R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. (corporation), appeals, and the defendant James Clark cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court determining the fair value of those shares, establishing the terms of payment for the purchase of those shares, and awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. On appeal, the corporation asserts that the trial court erred in determining the value of the defendant's shares by (1) not tax affecting the corporation's earnings in analyzing its valuation, (2) not applying a minority discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and awarding the defendant attorney's and expert witness fees and costs, on the ground that the defendant suffered minority oppression at the hands of the plaintiffs, (3) not applying a marketability discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and (4) incorrectly accounting for a certain loan due to the corporation from the defendant and ordering that certain sums be paid to the defendant within thirty days of the date of judgment. On cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by not awarding him attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the value of his shares in the corporation in accordance with the retainer agreement that he had signed with his counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3769

AC41439 - Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC v. Washburn ("The defendant, Steven T. Washburn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his demand for a trial de novo following an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC. The trial court also confirmed the arbitration award upon an application filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly confirmed the arbitration award because the arbitrator had failed to take an oath required by General Statutes § 52-414 (d), the plaintiff failed to file certain required documents required by General Statutes § 52-421 (a) and the arbitrator exceeded her powers or imperfectly executed them in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment granting the plaintiff's application to confirm the arbitration award.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3709

AC41366, AC41365 - Kelly v. Kurtz ("In this case arising from the buyout of an oral surgery practice, the plaintiff, Dorrance T. Kelly, DDS, and the defendants, Marshall D. Kurtz, DMD, Marshall D. Kurtz, DMD, PC, and Danbury Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, LLC (DOMSA), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered, following a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, in the amount of $2,150,000.To establish the terms of the buyout, the parties executed three documents: a purchase and sale agreement, an operating agreement, and a supplementary agreement. On appeal, the defendants claim, in AC 41366, that the trial court erred in denying their motion to set aside the jury's verdict on the plaintiff's claims of breach of the supplementary agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the supplementary agreement on the grounds that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of breach of the supplementary agreement, and (2) the jury's awards of damages on the plaintiff's claims of breach of the supplementary agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the supplementary agreement were inconsistent. The plaintiff claims, in AC 41365, that the trial court erred in (1) granting the defendants' motion to set aside the jury's verdict on his claims of invasion of privacy by misappropriation of his name, tortious interference with his business expectancies, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statues § 42-110a et seq., and unjust enrichment; and (2) dismissing his claim of breach of the operating agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the operating agreement on the ground that he lacked standing to bring those claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42602 - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank ("The plaintiff, Meribear Productions, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendants, Joan Frank and George Frank. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' joint appeal was untimely and, thus, subject to dismissal. See Practice Book §§ 63-1 and 66-8. In response, the defendants filed a motion for permission to file a late appeal. The defendants argued that permission to file a late appeal was warranted because they would suffer a loss of their appellate rights if the appeal was not allowed. We agreed with the defendants and, therefore, granted nunc pro tunc the defendants' motion to file a late appeal, and denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, indicating in our order that an opinion would follow. We write to explain our reasons for permitting this late appeal.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3703

AC39388 - Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., and the defendants Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, L.P. (POF), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I Master Ltd. (POF Master), Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, L.P. (PCM), Pursuit Capital Master (Cayman) Ltd. (PCM Master), Pursuit Partners, LLC (Pursuit Partners), Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Northeast Capital Management, LLC (Northeast), Anthony Schepis, and Frank Canelas, Jr. The central issue of this appeal is the defendants' claim that the court improperly interpreted the agreements between the parties to hold that certain defendants were liable for their failure to distribute to the plaintiff its share of a substantial contingent asset in which it had an interest.

The defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, partially in favor of the plaintiff as to certain defendants on its complaint and in favor of the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants also appeal from the orders of the trial court granting the plaintiff's postjudgment motion to increase the amount of a previously secured prejudgment remedy, and granting the plaintiff's motion for discovery to secure the additional prejudgment remedy attachment.

Addressing the parties' various contentions, we conclude that (1) the court properly interpreted the agreements between the parties in concluding that the plaintiff prevailed on its breach of contract claim, (2) the court properly rejected the defendants' breach of contract counterclaim, (3) the court properly concluded that the plaintiff prevailed on its breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, (4) the court properly concluded that the plaintiff could not prevail on its conversion claim, (5) the court properly struck the plaintiff's Connecticut statutory causes of action, (6) the court improperly concluded that all of the defendants who had signed the settlement agreement were liable for breach of contract and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) the court properly determined the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, (8) the court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to increase the amount of the prejudgment remedy, and (9) the defendants' claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for postjudgment discovery was not properly preserved, and, thus, we decline to review it. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil Prohibited

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3679

Our Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide (Table 9) has been updated to reflect Public Act 19-181, which eliminates Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil in Connecticut. In addition, the Public Act Summary states that "[t]his act sets specific conditions that must be met in granting a veil piercing claim to override limitations on a domestic entity interest holder’s liability in connection with the entity’s transactions. (Under the act, a 'domestic entity' is an entity whose internal affairs are governed by Connecticut law.) In doing so, the act generally codifies the 'instrumentality test,' one of two methods Connecticut courts use to determine whether to grant a veil-piercing claim." Below is revised table 9 in the Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide.

Table 9: Enforcing Money Judgments



Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3673

AC41467 - Weinshel, Wynnick & Associates, LLC v. Bongiorno ("The plaintiff, Weinshel, Wynnick & Associates, LLC, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, Marie Bongiorno, individually (Marie Bongiorno), and Marie Bongiorno, executrix of the estate of George Bongiorno (Marie Bongiorno, executrix), on its claims of successor liability and breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly (1) concluded that Marie Bongiorno could not be held personally liable for the plaintiff's damages pursuant to a theory of successor liability, and (2) rendered judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, executrix, on the basis of General Statutes 52-599 (b). We affirm the judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, and reverse the judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, executrix.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3664

AC40693 - Crosskey Architects, LLC v. POKO Partners, LLC ("The defendants POKO Partners, LLC, POKO Reservoir Yaremich Developers, LLC, POKO Cape Loom Managers, LLC, One Morningside Group, LLC, One Morningside Managers, LLC, One Morningside Owners, LLC, Capehart Ventures, LLC, POKO Management Corp., Richard K. Olson, and Pamela Olson, as executrix of the estate of Kenneth M. Olson, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in part in favor of the plaintiff, Crosskey Architects, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly pierced the corporate veil, (2) improperly found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the theory of quantum meruit and (3) abused its discretion in awarding statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a on the theory of quantum meruit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3648

AC40014 - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul ("The plaintiff, A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its application to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the defendants, James Saint Paul and Julie J. Saint Paul, and granting the defendants' application to confirm the arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) dismissed its application to vacate as untimely, (2) engaged thereafter in a review of the substance of the plaintiff's application to vacate and concluded that the arbitration award did not manifest an egregious or patently irrational application of the law, and (3) awarded the defendants $2185 in supplemental attorney's fees. We conclude that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely and did not abuse its discretion in awarding supplemental attorney's fees. In light of our conclusion that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely, we also conclude that the court erred by reviewing the substance of the application but that such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3618

AC40715 - DeRose v. Jason Robert's, Inc. (Arbitration; whether trial court properly denied motion to vacate arbitration award; "The defendants, Jason Robert's, Inc., and Robert D. Hartmann, Sr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting an application to confirm the award filed by the plaintiff, Michael DeRose. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) found that the arbitrator effectively had defaulted the defendants for failing to appear at the final arbitration hearing, and that this allegedly erroneous factual finding colored the court's decision-making process with respect to the motion to vacate; (2) failed to provide the defendants with an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the motion to vacate; (3) granted a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed at the arbitrator and his files; (4) failed to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had not addressed the entirety of the submission; (5) confirmed an award that violated public policy; and (6) confirmed an award made in manifest disregard of the law in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3599

SC20133 - Reclaimant Corp. v. Deutsch (Conflict of laws; unjust enrichment; statutes of limitations (§§ 52-576 and 52-577); motion for summary judgment on ground that plaintiff failed to timely commence action; claim that plaintiff failed to commence action within three year limitation period set forth in § 17-607 (c) of Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act; claim that trial court incorrectly determined that Delaware law rather than Connecticut law governed issue of whether plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims were time barred; "The narrow issue presented by this appeal is whether the statute of limitations of the state of Connecticut or the state of Delaware governs the unjust enrichment claims brought by the plaintiff, Reclaimant Corp., against the defendants, William J. Deutsch and Laurence B. Simon, seeking recovery for alleged overpayments issued to the defendants by the plaintiff's putative predecessor in interest pursuant to a limited partnership agreement. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims were governed by Delaware law and were time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations in the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (DRULPA), Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 17-607 (c) (2005). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improper because Connecticut law governs the timeliness of its unjust enrichment claims and that those claims timely were filed under Connecticut law.

We conclude that Delaware law governs the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the limited partnership agreement but that Connecticut law governs matters of judicial administration and procedure. We further conclude that, because the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims have a common-law origin, the limitation period properly is "characterized as procedural because it functions only as a qualification on the remedy to enforce the preexisting right." Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 230 Conn. 335, 347, 644 A.2d 1297 (1994). Thus, Connecticut law, rather than Delaware law, controls the timeliness of the plaintiff's claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3579

SC20013, SC20014 - McKay v. Longman ("These consolidated appeals require us to consider three main issues: (1) whether a plaintiff who is neither a party to a mortgage nor an intended beneficiary thereof has standing to challenge the enforceability of that mortgage under the Connecticut Limited Liability Company Act, General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 34-130; (2) whether specified transfers between an owner of property and the limited liability companies of which he is either an officer or equity holder constitute fraudulent transfers under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes §§ 52-552e (a) (1) and (2) and 52-552f; and (3) whether this court recognizes the doctrine of reverse piercing of the corporate veil and, if so, whether the trial court properly applied the doctrine to the facts in the present case.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3562

AC41463 - Clasby v. Zimmerman ("The defendant, Bradford Estates, LLC, is a general contracting business hired by the plaintiffs, Robert Clasby and Krista Clasby, to raise and remodel their shoreline home, which was extensively damaged by Hurricane Sandy.The parties agreed to arbitrate disputes that arose during the construction project, and the defendant now appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to confirm a February 4, 2017 arbitration award. The defendant contends that the February 4, 2017 award conclusively established that the defendant was entitled to collect from the plaintiffs a balance of $51,856.65 in materials and labor for certain cabinetry work."

"....For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court, and remand the matter with direction to grant the application to confirm the February 4, 2017 award, but to deny the remainder of the relief requested in the application.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3553

AC40855 - Stone v. East Coast Swappers, LLC ("The plaintiff, Thomas G. Stone III, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, finding that the defendant, East Coast Swappers, LLC, had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages, but declining to award punitive damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred when it failed to award him attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41675 - Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. ("The defendant, A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding supplemental attorney's fees to the plaintiff, Sharay Freeman. In the underlying action, the plaintiff brought a two count complaint in which she claimed a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and fraudulent misrepresentation related to the defendant's failure to refund the plaintiff's $2500 deposit for an attempted sale of a used vehicle. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on both counts, and this court affirmed the judgment on appeal. See Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 649, 651, 166 A.3d 857, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 927, 171 A.3d 60 (2017). On August 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed with the trial court a motion for supplemental attorney's fees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court subsequently granted in part the plaintiff's motion for supplemental attorney's fees and awarded her $49,980.

In the present appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in awarding the plaintiff supplemental attorney's fees, and (2) abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $49,980. We disagree.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3536

SC20032, SC20033, SC20036 - Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc. ("This certified appeal poses the question of whether and under what circumstances arbitration of a construction dispute between a property owner and a general contractor is res judicata as to the claims of subcontractors that did not participate in the arbitration. We agree with the Appellate Court that, in the absence of clear evidence of contrary intent by the parties, subcontractors are presumptively in privity with the general contractor on a construction project for purposes of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC0034, SC20035 - Girolametti v. VP Buildings, Inc.


Business Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3435

SC20037, SC20038 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (Action to Enforce a Foreign Judgment; "These interlocutory appeals require us to determine the preclusive effect, if any, to give in the present action to the findings and judgment rendered by the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (English court) in a prior action (English action) brought by the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, against the named defendant, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (Sebastian). The English action, tried to the bench in a judicial proceeding lasting forty-five days, resulted in a $243,023,089 judgment, plus interest, against Sebastian in November, 2013. Unable to collect on its English judgment, the plaintiff commenced the present action in Connecticut to enforce the English judgment against Sebastian and the individual defendant, Alexander Vik, who at all relevant times has been the sole shareholder and sole director of Sebastian. In its Connecticut action, the plaintiff seeks to pierce Sebastian’s corporate veil and hold Vik personally liable, as Sebastian’s alter ego, for his corporation’s judgment debt. Each of the parties claims an entitlement in the present case to a preclusive effect that inures to their respective advantage as a result of the final judgment rendered in the English action. The present appeals arise out of the unsuccessful efforts of each of the parties to persuade the trial court that this action must be decided in its respective favor on the basis of the alleged preclusive effect of the English judgment. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that none of the parties is entitled to the claimed preclusive effect. Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 573, 585–86, 166 A.3d 716 (2017). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3265

AC39973 - DE Auto Transport, Inc. v. Eurolite, LLC (Wrongful repossession, statutory theft; "The plaintiff, DE Auto Transport, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the defendants, Eurolite, LLC (Eurolite), and Leopold Zayaczkowski. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in its damages analysis. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2