Advance Release Opinions – Appellate Court – July 27

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court decisions about commercial litigation, custody and visitation, and divorce.

Commercial Litigation

This is a new tag. I introduced it because, although there is often a contract somewhere in every business dispute, there are often also other claims that the “Contracts” tag does not capture.

Abrams v. PH Architects, LLC – Abrams fell into dispute with his architects and general contractor about renovations to Abrams’ house and yard. He started an action against them, and they counterclaimed. Trial court found for architects and contractor on Abrams’s claims and on their counterclaims. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) Abrams’s claim that general contractor failed to follow contractual change order procedures failed because the operative complaint did not include or rely upon any such allegation; (2) record did not support Abrams’s claim that the architects did not follow contractual procedures and, even if they didn’t, it was not a material breach; (3) general contractor did not breach separate contract to build a stone wall on the perimeter because Abrams modified the contract to move the wall closer to the house; (4) architects had provided the required “contract administration” services; (5) trial court had discretion to credit architects’ expert over Abrams’ expert in rejecting Abrams’ professional malpractice claim; and (6) trial court had discretion to accept other expert testimony over Abrams’ expert’s about cost to complete punch list.

National Waste Associates, LLC v. Scharf – National Waste is a waste management broker. Employees signed a non-solicitation agreement with National Waste. Years later, employees went to work for a National Waste competitor. Then, one of National Waste’s customers declined to renew its contract and instead signed with the competitor. National Waste sued employees and competitor. Trial court found (mainly) for defendants. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) trial court denied unjust enrichment claim against competitor because competitor was “innocent,” not because contracts with employees precluded unjust enrichment against a third-party; (2) non-solicitation agreements were unreasonably overbroad as to prospective customers, and National Waste failed to prove a breach under trial court’s appropriately narrowed interpretation; and (3) National Waste failed to prove it was damaged by any misappropriated trade secret so Appellate Court did not have to decide whether CUTSA trumps CUTPA.

Custody and Visitation

In re Briana G. – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s decision terminating respondent father’s parental rights upon finding that commissioner had shown by clear and convincing evidence that father had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and that termination was in the best interests of the children.

Martowska v. White – To resolve a motion relating to visitation orders, the parties underwent a psychological evaluation. That effectively resolved the action. Plaintiff later moved the court to release a copy of the evaluation to him. Trial court denied that request, but did permit plaintiff to review the evaluation. Plaintiff appealed that order. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the postjudgment order at issue was not a final judgment.

Taylor v. Taylor – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s order denying visitation, finding that, even if plaintiff had shown a parent-like relationship with the minor child, he had not shown that denying visitation would cause real and significant harm to the child.

Divorce

Riccio v. Riccio – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s financial orders, concluding that (1) trial court did not misapply the law, abuse its discretion, or commit clear error in issuing financial orders that they were equitable, even if not monetarily equal; (2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing pension benefits under the present division method, instead of the present value method; and (3) trial court did not double dip in setting the rehabilitative alimony defendant had to pay because the court considered plaintiff’s income, not the value of the pension asset, in setting the alimony amount.