Gleason v. Durden, 211 Conn.App. 416

After their mother Stephanie died in 1973, John Gleason and his brother Charles received most of her real property; sister Marcella (and her husband Andrew) were effectively disinherited but continued living at Haverhill Road and the siblings informally cooperated for decades.
The parties discussed a loose, decades‑long “family cooperative” understanding to ‘‘figure it out later’’ about reciprocal transfers and support; no definitive written family agreement was proven at trial.
In 2005 John sold 22 Haverhill Road to Marcella and Andrew for $183,100, though a 2005 appraisal put fair market value at $433,100 (a $250,000 difference).
John sued (second amended complaint) on multiple counts including breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging the transfers were made pursuant to the family cooperative agreement and that Marcella/Andrew owed the $250,000 difference.
The trial court rejected breach of contract (found no definite family cooperative agreement) but awarded John and Charles $250,000 on an unjust enrichment theory, concluding the Haverhill sale was part of a separate, unpleaded agreement to develop and sell an inherited Newtown property.
On appeal this court reversed the unjust enrichment award, holding the trial court relied on a distinct, unpleaded and unproven agreement; the court affirmed the judgment in all other respects and declined to reach the inadequately briefed cross‑appeal claim about a confidential relationship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of unjust enrichment award re Haverhill sale	Gleason: sale did not fully resolve obligations because a separate agreement tied repayment of the $250,000 to future development/sale of Newtown property	Durden: no such collateral Newtown agreement was pleaded or proved; the 2005 sale contract governed the transfer	Reversed — trial court erred; award rested on an unpleaded, unproven agreement and unjust enrichment unavailable where contract covers the subject unless collateral agreement shown
Timeliness of unjust enrichment claim	(John disputed timeliness)	Durden: claim was time‑barred	Not reached on appeal — appellate court resolved case on pleading/merits ground instead
Award to Charles (who did not seek relief)	John implicitly sought relief for Charles as co‑owner	Durden: Charles was not an adverse party and did not seek damages	Reversed as to Charles — court could not award damages to someone not seeking relief; no justiciable controversy between Charles and defendants
Confidential/ fiduciary relationship (cross‑appeal)	John: a confidential relationship existed; defendants breached duties; sought accounting and additional damages	Durden: trial court correctly resolved claims; no reversible error	Not reviewed — plaintiff’s appellate briefing was inadequate, confusing, and abandoned the issue; judgment affirmed on other counts

David M. Somers & Associates, P.C. v. Busch, 927 A.2d 832 (Conn. 2007) (standard of review for trial court factual findings in unjust enrichment matters)
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 970 A.2d 592 (Conn. 2009) (equity may supply restitution only when an express contract does not fully address the subject)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor, 152 A.3d 470 (Conn. 2016) (unjust enrichment relief is unavailable where a valid contract governs the dispute)
Boland v. Catalano, 521 A.2d 142 (Conn. 1987) (basic definition and enforceability of contracts)
Oxford House at Yale v. Gilligan, 10 A.3d 52 (Conn. App. 2010) (pleadings must give fair notice of claims and issues to prevent surprise)
Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C., 57 A.3d 794 (Conn. App. 2012) (characterizing unjust enrichment as a broad, flexible equitable remedy)
Giulietti v. Giulietti, 784 A.2d 905 (Conn. App. 2001) (doctrine of retaining jurisdiction may permit equitable relief among parties, but requires alignment of interests/actual controversy)