Haas v. Haas
137 Conn. App. 424
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Florence Haas, elderly widow, sued her son Arthur Haas in 2011 for accounting, fraud, constructive fraud, and punitive damages; trial court found tolling of the statute under continuing course of conduct.
- Defendant, a CPA fiduciary, managed Haas’s finances since 1986, placed his name on accounts, and controlled account statements.
- From 1991–1995 the defendant failed to file Haas’s tax returns and provided no accounting to Haas.
- IRS levies and seizures occurred in 2000–2001, with Haas unaware until 2001; the defendant concealed information.
- Between 2001 and the 2008 trial, the defendant withheld documents and resisted discovery, leading the court to toll the limitations period; damages awarded totaled $223,617.34 (including $206,117.34 for levies/unaccounted funds and $17,500 punitive).
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s tolling ruling and damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing course of conduct tolled § 52-577. | Haas relied on ongoing concealment extending duty. | No continuing duty; statute should run. | Yes, tolling properly applied. |
| Whether damages for unaccounted funds were supported. | Damages reflect misappropriated funds. | Evidence insufficient or improper calculation. | Yes, damages sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Chittenden, 301 Conn. 575 (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2011) (continuing course of conduct tolls limitations period in ongoing relationship)
- Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn. App. 813 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001) (continuing duty and tolling framework; factual-bound inquiry)
- Jarvis v. Lieder, 117 Conn. App. 129 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009) (continuing course of conduct analysis)
- United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2002) (evidence and credibility standards in damages)