182 Conn. App. 312
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Bracken was reinstated as a Windsor Locks police officer in 1993 and a 1994 settlement required the town to restore him to "full benefits, privileges and emoluments" based on a 1987 seniority date.
- The town did not purchase pension service credit for the period 9/13/1987–6/18/1993 (the pre-reinstatement period). Bracken learned of that omission around 2002–2003.
- CMERS permits retroactive purchase of service credit up to the date an employee begins receiving retirement benefits; Bracken alleged the town could buy the credit at any time before his retirement.
- The town inquired about the cost to purchase the credit in 2010; CMERS provided a calculation ($99,316) valid for one year and noted a new calculation/interest adjustment would be required later.
- Bracken sued for breach of the 1994 settlement in 2014 seeking order requiring the town to purchase the pension credit (and later, if successful on appeal, damages). The trial court found the action barred by the six‑year statute of limitations and by laches; the Appellate Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52‑576 bars the suit | Bracken: accrual did not occur until he became eligible for retirement (2017); town’s 2013 refusal was anticipatory breach | Town: accrual occurred when town first failed to make pension contributions after reinstatement (1993) | Court: trial court’s factual finding that breach accrued on missed monthly contributions was clearly erroneous; town failed to prove statute of limitations defense |
| Whether laches bars equitable relief | Bracken: delay was not inexcusable or prejudicial; town presented no evidence of undue prejudice | Town: Bracken’s ~11‑year delay (discovered ~2002–03, sued 2014) prejudiced town because costs to purchase credit rose | Court: town failed to prove prejudice; laches defense not established |
| Whether § 7‑441/regular monthly contributions determine accrual | Bracken: § 7‑441 obligations for members do not govern retroactive purchase obligations under the settlement | Town: monthly contribution duty under § 7‑441 shows town had ongoing obligation, so breach occurred when contributions weren’t made | Held: § 7‑441 does not establish when the contractual obligation to buy retroactive credit arose; no record support town’s claim |
| Burden of proof for special defenses | Bracken: town must prove statute of limitations and laches by preponderance; it failed to do so | Town: argued facts supported its defenses | Held: town did not meet its burden on either defense; judgment reversed and case remanded for merits |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc. v. Kuehl, 299 Conn. 800 (Conn. 2011) (defendant bears burden to prove statute of limitations defense)
- Tolbert v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 257 Conn. 118 (Conn. 2001) (statute of limitations begins to run at time of breach; ignorance of damage generally does not toll)
- Bouchard v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 328 Conn. 345 (Conn. 2018) (definition of accrual and when a cause of action exists)
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Liberty Auto & Elec. Co., 262 Conn. 142 (Conn. 2002) (accrual when plaintiff could first successfully maintain an action)
- Nassra v. Nassra, 180 Conn. App. 421 (Conn. App.) (standard of review: statute of limitations is question of law; underlying facts reviewed for clear error)