179 Conn. App. 769
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Benjamin M. Alaimo sued defendant Matthew J. Alaimo in small claims court seeking reimbursement ($5,000) as half of a mortgage payoff; case removed to regular civil docket.
- Plaintiff alleged breach of an agreement; at trial he later argued a different contract and a larger $30,000 loss tied to a real estate purchase.
- Bench trial took place on December 15, 2015 and January 22, 2016; trial court issued an oral decision for the defendant.
- Trial court found plaintiff failed to prove his claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence and ruled two of defendant’s special defenses succeeded: statute of frauds and statute of limitations.
- On appeal plaintiff argued the contract was written (satisfying the statute of frauds) and that the action was within the six-year limitations period for written contracts.
- Appellate court held the record was inadequate to review plaintiff’s appellate arguments because (1) the arguments relied on claims beyond the pleaded complaint and (2) there was no signed memorandum of decision or transcript of the oral ruling and plaintiff did not seek articulation or file the required notice to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved breach of contract | Alaimo: proved defendant breached a contract causing $30,000 loss (written contract existed) | Alaimo failed to prove the claim pleaded in the complaint | Court: plaintiff failed to prove his pleaded claim by a fair preponderance; record inadequate to review expanded theory |
| Whether statute of frauds barred recovery | Alaimo: contract was in writing, so statute of frauds satisfied | Defendant: invoked statute of frauds as defense | Court: treated statute of frauds defense in favor of defendant; appellate review precluded by inadequate record |
| Whether statute of limitations barred recovery | Alaimo: action was within six-year period for written contracts | Defendant: invoked limitations defense | Court: trial court ruled for defendant on limitations; appellate review precluded by inadequate record |
| Adequacy of record for appellate review | Alaimo: argued trial court erred on merits and defenses | Defendant: maintained trial court’s rulings stand and record is what was tried | Court: record insufficient—plaintiff relied on allegations beyond the complaint and did not secure written findings or seek articulation; appeal fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. Steinberg, 138 Conn. 718, 89 A.2d 213 (1952) (plaintiff limited to allegations in complaint; may not plead one cause and recover on another)
- Michalski v. Hinz, 100 Conn. App. 389, 918 A.2d 964 (2007) (same principle limiting recovery to pleaded claims)
- Narumanchi v. DeStefano, 89 Conn. App. 807, 875 A.2d 71 (2005) (appellant must provide an adequate record for review)
- Michaels v. Michaels, 163 Conn. App. 837, 136 A.3d 1282 (2016) (inadequate record precludes appellate review)
- Murcia v. Geyer, 151 Conn. App. 227, 93 A.3d 1189 (2014) (same: appellate court requires record containing trial court’s factual findings)