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=4444

AC43135 - O & G Industries, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. ("The defendant, American Home Assurance Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, O & G Industries, Inc., finding that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under certain bonds issued by the defendant as surety, including a payment bond and a bond (substitute bond) that had been substituted for the discharge of a mechanic's lien filed by the plaintiff in connection with materials it had furnished for a construction project. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) failing to find that the plaintiff breached its obligation of "diligence and utmost good faith" owed to the defendant, (2) finding that the plaintiff satisfied the condition precedent to the payment bond, (3) allowing the plaintiff to recover beyond the penal sum of the mechanic's lien bond, and (4) allowing the plaintiff to put on a rebuttal case after the defendant had rested its case without calling any witnesses or introducing any evidence. We disagree and, accordingly, 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=4348

AC40701 - Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano ("The plaintiff brought the civil action underlying this appeal seeking relief related to the defendant's failure to comply with its corporate bylaws, which required the defendant to satisfy state and federal licensing requirements pertaining to its mortgage loan business. During the course of the underlying litigation, the trial court, relying on a stipulation entered into by the parties, ordered the defendant to satisfy the licensing requirements at issue by a certain date or, in accordance with the penalty for his noncompliance set forth in the plaintiff's bylaws, his stock in the plaintiff would be surrendered to the plaintiff. Subsequently, after finding that the defendant had failed to comply with its order, the court rendered judgment ordering the defendant's shares to be surrendered to the plaintiff.

From this judgment, the defendant appeals. The defendant claims that the court erred (1) in its interpretation of the parties' stipulation, (2) by failing to apply the doctrines of substantial performance, waiver, and estoppel in its analysis of whether he satisfied the court's order, (3) in finding that the plaintiff did not breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) by denying his motion to open the judgment without holding a preliminary hearing related to the motion. The plaintiff argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because the defendant's claims are moot. We agree with the plaintiff's jurisdictional argument. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4321

AC42383 - Deleo v. Equale & Cirone, LLP ("The defendants, Equale & Cirone, LLP (partnership), and Anthony W. Cirone, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Derek J. DeLeo, on the defendants' counterclaim for damages under the noncompete provision of the parties' partnership agreement (noncompete provision). The defendants claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the noncompete provision constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and, therefore, is unenforceable. 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=4290

AC41486 - Northeast Builders Supply & Home Centers, LLC v. RMM Consulting, LLC ("On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's motion to strike four counts of their counterclaim on the ground that the counts were improperly joined because they failed the transaction test set forth in Practice Book § 10-10, and (2) rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its complaint and on the sole remaining count of the counterclaim because the court (a) incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was the seller of the goods at issue, (b) wrongly concluded that the individual defendants, Jones and Morrill, were liable as buyers of the goods rather than as guarantors only, (c) failed to properly consider the defendants' defense of revocation of acceptance, (d) rendered judgment for the plaintiff despite having found that some of the goods at issue were defective and that the plaintiff had refused to remedy or replace them, and (e) incorrectly found that the plaintiff proved its damages to a reasonable degree of certainty. We conclude that the court properly granted the motion to strike, but that the form of the judgment rendered on the stricken counts of the counterclaim was incorrect, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment on the stricken counts of the counterclaim and remand with direction to render a judgment of dismissal on those counts. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4277

AC39890, AC40558 - Indoor Billboard Northwest, Inc. v. M2 Systems Corp. ("In Docket No. AC 39890, the defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to the unjust enrichment cause of action brought by the plaintiffs. The defendant claims that the court erred in the following ways: (1) by awarding damages to a person who was neither a plaintiff in the underlying action nor a nonparty who had assigned his interest to a plaintiff in the underlying action; (2) by determining that the defendant was not entitled to a setoff; (3) by rejecting its special defense of judicial estoppel; (4) by finding that the note executed by the defendant in favor of a third party had been amended; (5) by finding that the defendant had been unjustly enriched as a result of the plaintiffs' funds; (6) by finding that cross-traded subnotes, which had been exchanged between some of the plaintiffs' accounts, had unjustly enriched the defendant; (7) by finding that the defendant's loan obligation to a third party was satisfied in part with the use of the plaintiffs' funds; and (8) by finding that the plaintiffs had satisfied in part the defendant's debt obligation to a third party despite the fact that the debt was not discharged pursuant to the terms of the note at issue.

Docket No. AC 40558 is the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's decision denying their postverdict motion for attorney's fees. In their appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by denying their motion for attorney's fees and expenses after rendering judgment in their favor with respect to their unjust enrichment cause of action. We agree with the first claim raised by the defendant in Docket No. AC 39890 and, consequently, reverse the portion of the judgment that is the subject of that claim. With respect to the remainder of the claims raised by the defendant in Docket No. AC 39890 and the claim raised by the plaintiffs in Docket No. AC 40558, we affirm the judgment and the decision of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4268

AC43027 - Wittman v. Intense Movers, Inc. (Corporate dissolution; breach of fiduciary duty; notice to purchase shares of company pursuant to statute (§ 33-900 (b)); motion to enforce settlement agreement; "The self-represented defendants, Alexander Leute and William R. Leute III, appeal from the judgment of the trial court enforcing a signed memorandum of understanding as supplemented by an unsigned settlement document with its attachments (jointly, settlement agreement) made between the defendants and the plaintiffs, Matthew Wittman and Carol Wittman, regarding the defendants' purchase of the plaintiffs' shares of stock in Intense Movers, Inc. (company). On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the defendants' ability to obtain third-party financing to fund the purchase of the plaintiffs' shares was a contingency of the settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4256

AC42667 - Village Mortgage Co. v. Garbus ("In this declaratory judgment action, the defendants, Ronald Garbus and Georganne Garbus, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, declaring that the defendants are not lawful stockholders of the plaintiff, Village Mortgage Company. The defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff's cause of action is akin to an equitable claim for injunctive relief subject to the doctrine of laches, rather than a legal claim for tortious financial misconduct subject to the statute of limitations, specifically General Statutes § 52-577. 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=4257

AC42280 - Featherston v. Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc. ("The defendants, Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc. (Son Singular), and Katchko & Sons Construction Services, Inc. (Sons Plural), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Peter Featherston. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to amend his second revised complaint, (2) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on counts one and two of his second revised complaint sounding in violations of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., and (3) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on count three of his second revised complaint sounding in a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We dismiss, sua sponte, the defendants' original appeal for lack of a final judgment; see part I of this opinion; and, with respect to the amended appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4161

AC42182 - Manere v. Collins ("The plaintiff, Robert Manere, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendants, Peter Collins and BAHR, LLC (BAHR). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that BAHR's counterclaim stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) applied a six year statute of limitations to BAHR's counterclaim, and (3) rejected his application to dissolve BAHR on the ground of oppression pursuant to General Statutes § 34-267 (a) (5), Connecticut's limited liability company dissolution statute. We agree with the plaintiff's second and third claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4150

AC41568, AC42396 - Clinton v. Aspinwall ("In this breach of contract and fiduciary duty case, the defendants, Michael E. Aspinwall, Steven F. Piaker, and David W. Young, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, John B. Clinton. The parties' dispute arises out of their ownership and operation of CCP Equity Partners, LLC (CCP). The defendants' principal claim on appeal is that the court erred in its construction of the operating agreement that governed CCP, resulting in multiple erroneous rulings throughout the course of the litigation. The defendants specifically claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to strike, (2) denied their motion for summary judgment, (3) denied their motion in limine, (4) charged the jury, (5) denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion to set aside the verdict (posttrial motions), and (6) awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees and costs. We agree that the court improperly construed portions of the agreement and reverse the judgment in part and affirm it in part, and remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of attorney's fees and costs.")


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.")


1 2 3