Argument Recap:  Lackman v. McAnulty, SC 19668

On October 14, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of Lackman v. McAnulty, SC 19668, a case in which two nieces sued their two aunts in a battle over real estate from their grandfather’s estate.  The underlying question was whether the “Property” should pass through the grandfather’s revocable trust – in which case the aunts shared in the Property – or whether the property should pass by specific bequest in the grandfather’s will – in which case only the nieces and their father would get the Property.

Continue Reading How is a decedent’s property dispersed: Revocable Trust or Will?

Argument Recap:  Jefferson Allen, et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, SC 19567

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Jefferson Allen, et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, SC 19567, on October 13, 2016.  The issues in the case concern the constitutionality of Connecticut’s taxation of the exercise of qualified stock options by former residents when the options had no readily ascertainable value when received as part of compensation for work performed in Connecticut.  As part of this question, the Court is asked to interpret certain tax regulations referencing the applicable time period for taxing income derived from or connected with sources within this state.  Finally, because the nonresidents actually filed and paid income taxes within Connecticut for income from the exercise of qualified stock options in 2002, but later tried to amend and get a refund of those taxes, the Court is asked to address the issue of whether the statute of limitations is jurisdictional and equitably tolled by the existence of an audit.

Continue Reading Can Connecticut tax income from certain stock options exercised after the recipient (employee) moves out of state?

Argument Recap:  Gold v. Rowland, SC 19585

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for a second time in the 15-year old lawsuit by a class of Connecticut state employees claiming that they were members entitled to shares of stock when their insurer, Anthem, demutualized in 2001.  At the time Anthem converted from a mutual to a stock corporation, Anthem determined that the State of Connecticut, as the group under the policies, was the member under Anthem’s Articles of Incorporation.  Therefore, the State received 1,645,773 shares of stock that it later sold for $93 million.  The employees claim that the Articles of Incorporation also deem them, as individual certificate holders under the group policy, to be members and that they should have received stock or cash.  Both Judge Sheldon and Judge Bright ruled on summary judgment that the Articles of Incorporation are ambiguous.  Judge Bright held a bench trial and issued a 90-page decision in which he ruled for Anthem that only the State was a member at the time of the demutualization.

Continue Reading The $100 Million Question: How to Interpret a Contract?

Here’s a look at the second week of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s October 2016 term:

Monday, October 17th

The Court starts the week by hearing oral argument in Gold v. Rowland, SC 19585, a fifteen year old lawsuit by state employees claiming that they were entitled to stock when their insurer demutualized. Two criminal cases follow: In State v. Samuel M., SC 19578, the Court will consider what the standards should govern determining when a child charged with a felony should be tried as an adult on the regular criminal docket.  In State v. Bouknight, SC19326, the Court is confronted with the question of how Facebook profiles should be authenticated to support admission as evidence.

Continue Reading October Term: Week Two

The Connecticut Supreme Court has released its argument calendar for its second term of the 2016-2017 sitting. Here’s a look at the first week:

Tuesday, October 11th

The Court starts the October term with a family appeal and a habeas appeal. In Gabriel v. Gabriel, SC 19571, the Court granted certification to review the Appellate Court’s decision as to whether the trial court’s modification of unallocated alimony and child support was proper after there was a change in the primary custodial parent. In Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, SC 19512, the Supreme Court will consider whether a prisoner has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a second habeas proceeding, challenging the quality of the representation at the first habeas proceeding.

Continue Reading October Term: Week One

Argument Recap:  Heisinger v. Cleary, SC 19633

In Heisinger v. Cleary, SC 19633, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case alleging mismanagement of a decedent’s estate and residuary trust. The plaintiff claimed that the overvaluing of the principal asset of the estate by some $3,000,000 was a breach of the co-executor’s fiduciary duty to plaintiff, the sole beneficiary of the estate, because reliance upon an allegedly erroneous appraisal resulted in severe federal estate tax liabilities.

The co-executors, the plaintiff’s aunt and an attorney with a long-time relationship with the decedent, raised several special defenses, including the fact that they were entitled to rely on an expert appraisal in valuing the assets of the estate – the so-called third party reliance rule.  The defendants ultimately moved for summary judgment, which was denied initially as premature.  After much discovery and numerous depositions, the defendants renewed their summary judgment motions just prior to trial. The plaintiff also sought partial summary judgment.

Continue Reading Can “Blind” Negligence Constitute a Breach of a Fiduciary Duty?

 Argument Recap: Graham v. Olson Woods Associates, Inc., SC 19626

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Graham v. Olson Woods Associates, Inc., SC 19626.  The question before the court is whether an insurer that is dismissed from a case after a formal hearing on an unopposed motion to dismiss may be cited back into the case at a later date. This case has implications to employers, insurers and claimants alike.  A decision permitting the insurer to be cited back (effectively holding that a motion to dismiss is never final) means that employers and insurers will be forced to incur legal fees for attorney appearances at all hearings (informal and formal) through the end of the case (whatever and whenever that is) regardless of whether there is evidence to implicate the employer/insurer.  On the other hand, a decision in the insurer’s favor would appear to elevate form over substance, where there may be no actual prejudice to the insurer in reversing the initial ruling.

The case is further complicated by its context. This particular claim arises from the “mystifying place” called the asbestos docket: the Eighth District of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Asbestos claims often stay on the docket for years before they ever reach a conclusion and therefore, the cost to employers/insurers is not insignificant.

Continue Reading In the Workers’ Compensation Arena, Are Dispositive Motions Ever Dispositive?

Argument Recap: Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation v. Town of Colchester, SC 19551

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on September 21, 2016 in Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation v. Town of Colchester, SC 19551, a tax appeal challenging the assessment of the value of an affordable housing project in Colchester.  Of particular interest is the dispute over whether Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) should affect the fair market value of the subject property for tax assessment purposes.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program is a federal tax incentive program designed to stimulate investment in affordable housing. Under the program, an eligible taxpayer receives credit against federal income taxes by holding an ownership interest in a qualified low-income housing project. This case presents the question of whether these tax credits can be considered in the valuation of the affordable housing property for purposes of property taxes.

Continue Reading Low Income Housing Tax Credits: Should They Affect A Municipal Property Tax Bill?

Argument Recap: Disciplinary Counsel v. Laurence Parnoff, SC 19626

 Practice Book § 2-47A requires the disbarment of any lawyer who has knowingly misappropriated a client’s funds.  Last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of Disciplinary Counsel v. Laurence Parnoff, in which the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel argued that both the trial court and the Appellate Court got it wrong when they concluded that Attorney Parnoff’s conduct in closing an escrow account and taking those funds for his personal use was merely negligent and not a “knowing misappropriation” of client funds.  No Connecticut appellate court has previously considered the application of Practice Book 2-47A and therefore this case will be the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to rule on what conduct constitutes a knowing misappropriation.

Parnoff Fails To Maintain Disputed Funds In An Escrow Account

Attorney Parnoff represented Darcy Yuille in a claim against her former employer.  In her retainer agreement, Yuille agreed to pay Parnoff a contingency fee of 40% of her recovery if she prevailed on her bad faith claim.  After winning more than $1 million at arbitration, Yuille contested the 40% contingency – $438,413.17 – as being in excess of the fees permitted under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-251(c).  Yuille also demanded that another attorney, Laura Mooney, who had made an appearance in the bad faith litigation on Yuille’s behalf, be paid out of Parnoff’s share of the award.  In 2004, Yuille agreed that Parnoff could take $125,000 of the judgment and Parnoff agreed to hold the balance of the disputed fee in escrow until the resolution of the dispute.

Continue Reading Court Considers Subjective Standard to Prove “Knowing Misappropriation” of Clients Funds

Argument Recap:  Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Proctor, SC 19531

The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Proctor, SC 1935, a dispute concerning a poultry business, unpaid electric service and a man from New Jersey known only as “Chan.” Setting aside the interesting facts, the legal issue presented is whether the elements of an implied in fact contract were established at trial.

The facts, in a nutshell, reflect that the Defendant, Gary Proctor, was a part time employee of a poultry business known as “Pedigree Chicks” which, although operating in Connecticut, was not registered with the Secretary of State’s office.  Mr. Proctor contacted Plaintiff to arrange for electric service to the commercial location but was informed by Plaintiff that no commercial account could be created in the absence of a validly registered corporate entity.  From that point, the facts asserted by the parties diverge greatly with the Plaintiff asserting that Defendant orally undertook personal responsibility for not only future electric consumption charges but also for payment of “retroactive” charges for service previously provided to the location.  Plaintiff’s claims were bolstered by Defendant’s act of providing his home address, contact phone numbers and social security number in a conversation with one of its representatives at the time of the creation of the account.

Continue Reading A Chicken Farm and an Electric Bill – Enforcing an Implied Contract