163 Conn.App. 579
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Ruth Gladstein was named a residual beneficiary in her mother’s trust; her share was reduced from 50% to 10% by a 1997 amendment allegedly influenced by her sister and brother-in-law.
- Gladstein sued the Goldfields and Attorney Martin Wolf in 2009 alleging forgery, undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty related to the 1997 amendment.
- In 2008 Gladstein filed for bankruptcy in Nevada and did not disclose her status as a residual beneficiary or any related claim; she received a discharge.
- Federal bankruptcy law deems undisclosed assets and causes of action part of the bankruptcy estate under the control of the bankruptcy trustee.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing because the claim belonged to Gladstein’s bankruptcy trustee; Gladstein conceded lack of individual standing and moved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-109 to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as plaintiff.
- The trial court denied substitution, finding the nondisclosure was the plaintiff’s own negligence and thus not a “mistake” under the interpretation the parties had urged; the court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gladstein appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should substitute the bankruptcy trustee as plaintiff under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-109 | Gladstein argued the trustee should be substituted so the case could proceed; she initially urged the DiLieto definition of “mistake” (good-faith, not due to plaintiff’s negligence) | Defendants argued the claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate so substitution should be denied because Gladstein’s omission was negligent | Denial of substitution affirmed because plaintiff induced the trial court to apply the DiLieto definition and cannot now repudiate it on appeal; claim unreviewable |
| Whether the trial court erred in defining “mistake” to exclude plaintiff’s negligence | On appeal Gladstein contended § 52-109’s “mistake” can include negligent omissions and thus substitution should have been allowed | Defendants maintained the trial court properly applied the DiLieto/Supreme Court formulation | Court declined to review the new argument as Gladstein had advocated the opposite position below (invited/induced error) |
| Whether the invited-error doctrine bars Gladstein’s appellate challenge | Gladstein requested reconsideration under plain error and supervisory powers if invited-error bars review | Defendants argued Gladstein induced the ruling and cannot now complain; plain error is inapplicable | Appellate court held claim unreviewable due to induced error and rejected plain error and supervisory power requests |
| Whether dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper | Gladstein conceded she lacked individual standing unless trustee substituted | Defendants argued dismissal appropriate because the trustee (not Gladstein) owns the claim | Affirmed: because substitution was properly denied, dismissal for lack of standing was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (debtor must fully disclose assets; omissions undermine bankruptcy system)
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (Conn. 2010) (undisclosed assets remain property of the bankruptcy estate)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (Conn. 2010) (definition of “mistake” for § 52-109 described and relied upon)
- Barger v. Cartersville, 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (bankruptcy estate includes potential causes of action existing at filing)
- State v. Martone, 160 Conn. App. 315 (Conn. App. 2015) (invited/induced error doctrine; party cannot complain on appeal about error it induced)