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.
Contract Law

Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4058

SC20329 - E. I. du Ponte de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (Breach of Contract; Whether, under New York law, the plaintiff was required to comply strictly with contractual notice provisions in order to exercise its right to indemnification under the contract. "The principal issue in this appeal is whether New York law requires a party to strictly comply with a notice provision in a commercial contract in order to recover for the other party's breach of the contract. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), had not strictly complied with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly required strict compliance with the APA's notice provisions because New York law distinguishes between public contracts and private commercial contracts, and does not require strict compliance in commercial contracts when the contracting party receives actual notice and suffers no prejudice from the deviation. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Procedure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4055

AC41986 - Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (Sanctions; whether trial court's order of sanctions met requirements for evaluating whether court's order constituted abuse of discretion; "This appeal involves a challenge to sanctions imposed by the trial court to remedy extensive discovery abuses by the defendants that frustrated the plaintiff's attempt to collect on a significant monetary judgment. 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 Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Northeast Capital Management, LLC (Northeast), Anthony Schepis, and Frank Canelas, Jr., appeal from the trial court's order of sanctions, in which the court awarded the plaintiff, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., attorney's fees and litigation costs for the defendants' discovery abuses. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court's order of sanctions constituted an abuse of discretion because the order failed to meet the three requirements that a trial court must deem satisfied before imposing sanctions and that this court must analyze to determine whether the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion. See Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 328 Conn. 60, 70–71, 176 A.3d 1167 (2018) (citing Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 17–18, 776 A.2d 1115 (2001)). We disagree with the defendants' claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4054

AC42306 - Winakor v. Savalle (Breach of contract; violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); violation of Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.); attorney's fees; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether services provided by a contractor as part of the construction of a new residence fell outside of the statutory purview of the Home Improvement Act (Improvement Act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq. The defendant, Vincent Savalle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Lee Winakor, in which the court concluded that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $100,173.32 for breach of contract, violation of the Improvement Act, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110b et seq. On appeal, the defendant claims, among other things, that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor the plaintiff on (1) the CUTPA count because it predicated CUTPA liability on the erroneous determination that the defendant had violated the Improvement Act, and (2) the breach of contract count because there was insufficient evidence to establish causation, which is necessary to prove damages. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant on his claim regarding the improper imposition of CUTPA liability and the award of attorney's fees but disagree with him on his claim that the court improperly found for the plaintiff on the count alleging a breach of contract. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4045

AC41350, AC41351 - Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman (Leases; options to purchase real property; specific performance; "In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Pack 2000, Inc., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, which determined the amount due the defendant, Eugene C. Cushman, for two properties he had contracted to sell to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the purchase prices for the properties, located in Groton and New London, should be based on their current appraised values, rather than their appraised values in 2003, (2) the plaintiff was required to pay use and occupancy for its continued use of the Groton property retroactive to June 1, 2014, until the closing of the sale of the property to the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to credits toward the purchase price of each property for moneys paid as rent or use and occupancy after it exercised its options to purchase the properties. The defendant filed cross appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to use the current appraised value set by his appraiser as the purchase price for the Groton property. We agree with the plaintiff on all of its claims and disagree with the defendant as to his cross appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the cases with direction to determine the purchase prices of the properties pursuant to the plaintiff’s exercise of its options to purchase the properties in 2003, that the court credit against those purchase prices any payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for use of the properties after its exercise of its purchase options, and, to the extent that the payments to the defendant on each property, after the option became effective, exceeded the purchase price of that property, that the court order any overpayment be refunded to the plaintiff.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4048

AC42748 - Sackman v. Quinlan (Conversion; unjust enrichment; tortious interference with contract; whether trial court abused its discretion when it granted motion for permission to file motion for summary judgment; "This appeal arises from a dispute between the self-represented plaintiffs, the biological children of William Sackman, Jr. (William), from his marriage to Elaine Sackman (Elaine), and the defendants, who are the children of William's second wife, Nancy L. Sackman (Nancy), and one of the children's spouse. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendants on a motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, (2) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42654 - Audibert v. Halle (Negligence; motion to set aside verdict and for new trial; "The plaintiff, Carole Audibert, brought this personal injury action against the defendant, Wesley Halle, for injuries she alleges she sustained as the result of an automobile accident on April 12, 2013, caused by the defendant's negligence. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence, (2) the court improperly failed to provide a curative instruction to the jury, (3) the defendant's counsel violated rule 3.4 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct during closing argument, depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial, and (4) the court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the verdict and to grant the plaintiff a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4035

AC40066 - Sclafani Properties, LLC v. Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (Breach of lease; attorney trial referee; attorney's fees; "The plaintiff, Sclafani Properties, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding it damages and attorney's fees for the failure of the defendants, Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (lessee), and its president, Gilbert Beck (guarantor), to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under a commercial lease for property located at 482 Glenbrook Road in Stamford (property) The plaintiff claims that the court (1) erred when it failed to include in its judgment for the plaintiff an amount for unpaid real estate taxes and (2) abused its discretion in awarding only $6391.63 in attorney's fees. We reverse in part the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4028

AC42920 - Prime Bank v. Vitano, Inc. (Statute of limitations; guarantee of promissory note; "The plaintiff, Prime Bank, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Vitano, Inc. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that its cause of action to recover from the defendant on a promissory note accrued on October 18, 2011, and was barred by the statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-576 on October 18, 2017. The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in failing to conclude that there was an acknowledgement of the debt by the defendant, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4016

AC41551 - Pursuit Partners, LLC v. Reed Smith, LLP (Breach of contract; motion for summary judgment; claim that trial court improperly concluded that defendant law firm was bound by confidentiality provision of settlement agreement only to extent of its client; "The plaintiffs Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, LP (POF), and Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, LP (PCM) (plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant Reed Smith, LLP (Reed Smith). POF and PCM are hedge funds to which PIM provided investment management and advisory services. Reed Smith is a law firm that represented Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. (Alpha Beta), an investor in POF and PCM. In the present action, the plaintiffs claim that Reed Smith violated a confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement executed by, among others, Alpha Beta and the plaintiffs, to which Reed Smith was a signatory. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by concluding that (1) the language of the settlement agreement bound Reed Smith to the confidentiality provision only to the extent of its principal, Alpha Beta, and (2) a finding in a related action, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC, 193 Conn. App. 381, 415, 219 A.3d 801 (2019), cert. denied, 334 Conn. 911, 221 A.3d 446 (2020) (Alpha Beta) —namely, that the Pursuit Parties' material breach of the settlement agreement effectively released Alpha Beta from its confidentiality obligations thereunder—was entitled to collateral estoppel effect that extended to Reed Smith, as an agent of Alpha Beta. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3996

AC42522 - Berger v. Deutermann (Breach of contract; "In this breach of contract action in connection with the attempted sale of real property by the defendants, Guy Deutermann and Diane Deutermann, the self-represented plaintiff, Dana Berger, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants on all counts of her complaint. She contends that the court (1) failed to recognize the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations in trial exhibits, (2) improperly concluded that the roof of the property was properly installed, (3) failed to consider Diane Deutermann's answers to certain interrogatories that conflicted with Guy Deutermann's testimony, (4) improperly concluded that Guy Deutermann acted under an honestly held claim of right in retaining the plaintiff's deposit funds, and (5) improperly concluded that she failed to close on the purchase of the property and that the defendants rightfully retained her $12,000 deposit pursuant to the parties' agreement. We decline to reach the merits of the plaintiff's appeal due to an inadequate record.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42270 - Factor King, LLC v. Housing Authority (Summary judgment; "The plaintiff, Factor King, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant Housing Authority for the City of Meriden. The question presented in this appeal is whether, pursuant to a factoring and security agreement between a factor (purchaser) and a seller, the purchaser is entitled to direct payment of a receivable due to the seller from an account not purchased through the agreement, but in which the purchaser has a security interest to secure the seller's obligations as delineated in the agreement. Because we answer that question in the negative, we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.")


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3915

AC42082 - RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. ("In this breach of contract action, the plaintiff, RCN Capital, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding it $108,000 in damages. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined the amount of damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


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.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3877

AC41966 - Peterson v. Torrington (Declaratory judgment; summary judgment; tax sale; "This appeal arises out of a system to collect and pay property taxes unique to the defendant city of Torrington (city). See 21 Spec. Acts 7, No. 4 (1931). Pursuant to the system, the defendant tax collector, Robert Crovo (tax collector), conducted a tax sale in which he sold the real property of the plaintiff, Alyssa Peterson, to collect unpaid property taxes. In response, Peterson commenced an action against the city, the tax collector, and the purchasers of the property at the sale, the defendants William Gilson and Sharon Gilson (purchasers). Subsequently, Homeowners Finance Company (lender), the first mortgage holder on the plaintiff's property, intervened as a defendant, in an attempt to void the sale of the property. All six parties filed motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court, after concluding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied summary judgment as to Peterson and the lender. Peterson and the lender filed separate appeals. We dismiss the lender's appeal." "[1]Peterson's appeal was dismissed after she failed to timely file a brief and appendix. She, therefore, is not a party to this appeal.")

AC42256 - Dickau v. Mingrone (Property; breach of contract; "The plaintiff, Jason Dickau, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, Lawrence Mingrone, on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation, relating to the defendant's sale of real property to the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's findings that (1) the Office of Building Inspection and Enforcement for the City of New Haven (building department) had not made a determination that the number of legal units in the property was less than three, and (2) the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of damages as to each of his claims were clearly erroneous. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42000 - Jepsen v. Camassar (Declaratory judgment; "The plaintiffs Anders B. Jepsen and Beth Jepsen appeal from the denial of their postjudgment motions for equitable relief, for attorney's fees and costs, and to open the judgment rendered by the trial court following a remand by this court. See Jepsen v. Camassar, 181 Conn. App. 492, 187 A.3d 486 (Jepsen I), cert. denied, 329 Conn. 909, 186 A.3d 12 (2018). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the trial court failed to provide them with relief that was encompassed within the mandate of Jepsen I when it denied their claims to equitable relief and attorney's fees and costs, (2) even assuming that the mandate did not encompass the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the trial court improperly declined to open the judgment to provide the plaintiffs with their desired relief, and (3) the trial court violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by failing to provide them with their desired relief on remand. We agree in part with the plaintiffs' claim to attorney's fees and costs, reverse the judgment of the trial court limited to that issue and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

AC41688 - Carabetta Organization, Ltd. v. Meriden ("In this case arising from a dispute that originated more than twenty years ago, the plaintiffs, The Carabetta Organization, Ltd., Summitwood Development, LLC (Summitwood), and Nipmuc Properties, LLC (Nipmuc), appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, the city of Meriden, Dominick Caruso, Tilcon, Inc., and Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. (Tilcon). The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in concluding that their claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3856

AC41054 - Semac Electric Co. v.Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Breach of contract; fraud; "In this action arising from the expansion and renovation of Stamford Hospital (hospital), both parties, the plaintiff, Semac Electric Company, Inc. (Semac), and the defendant, Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, challenging the court's determinations that they both breached the contract between them, and awarding Skanska damages in the amount of $3,857,130.77, as reimbursement for funds that Skanska had overpaid to Semac for work that Semac had not performed. Skanska also claims that the trial court erred in finding that the individual third-party defendants, Kevin Pope and Thomas Scanlon, the chief financial officer of Semac and the president of Semac, respectively, did not engage in fraudulent conduct when they signed, under oath, invoices misrepresenting that Semac had paid other subcontractors for certain goods and services. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3841

AC41988 - Piccolo v. American Auto Sales, LLC ("The self-represented plaintiff, Andrew J. Piccolo, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to a jury, in favor of the defendants, American Auto Sales, LLC (business), and Robert J. Vitale, Sr. (Vitale).On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred as a matter of law by striking counts four and eight of his revised complaint, which sounded in unjust enrichment, because it mistakenly concluded that the plaintiff had incorporated the allegations of the existence and breach of an express contract and unjust enrichment in those counts. We agree with the plaintiff and, therefore, reverse 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.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3802

AC41789 - Jacques v. Jacques ("The plaintiff, Jean-Marc Jacques, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Muriel Jacques. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that his action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52-576 (a), (2) determining that it lacked continuing jurisdiction to enforce the parties' separation agreement, and (3) failing to construe the parties' separation agreement as a contract and to effectuate the intent of the parties to the contract. Because, however, the plaintiff has failed to challenge an independent ground for the trial court's ruling, the plaintiff's appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3770

AC38614 - T & M Building Co. v. Hastings ("The plaintiff, T & M Building Co., Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, William Hastings. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) determining that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant violated the statute of frauds, (2) rendering judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, and (3) rendering judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim. 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 Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3743

AC41814 - AC Consulting, LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("The plaintiff, A.C. Consulting, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., following the granting of the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's substitute complaint. The substitute complaint contained three counts alleging, respectively, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in evaluating the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the substitute complaint, the trial court improperly (1) failed both to find an ambiguity in the parties' contract regarding its operative length and to construe that ambiguity against the defendant as the drafter of the contract, (2) concluded that the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant terminated the contract without giving the plaintiff "sufficient notice under the contract" was legally insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract, and (3) concluded that the allegations that the defendant or the defendant's agent made assurances regarding the length of the contract were insufficient to plead any of the plaintiff's causes of action, including negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3733

SC20078 - Bilbao v. Goodwin ("In this appeal, we are called on to determine how pre-embryos created through in vitro fertilization should be distributed upon the divorce of their progenitors. The plaintiff, Jessica Bilbao, and the defendant, Timothy R. Goodwin, were married and underwent in vitro fertilization in an effort to have children. Several pre-embryos resulting from that treatment were stored for implantation in the future. As part of a storage agreement with the fertility clinic, the parties unequivocally stated that they wanted the pre-embryos discarded if they ever divorced. Their marriage has since been dissolved, and the plaintiff now seeks to have the pre-embryos discarded in accordance with the storage agreement. The defendant argues that the agreement is unenforceable, however, and wants the pre-embryos preserved or donated. The trial court concluded that the storage agreement was unenforceable but awarded the pre-embryos to the plaintiff. We conclude that the storage agreement is enforceable and, therefore, reverse the trial court's judgment insofar as the court determined that the agreement was not enforceable.")


1 2 3 4 5 6