313 Conn. 786
Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiff Iacurci and defendants Sax, etc., had a seventeen-year relationship (1989–2006) handling all tax work and filing returns.
- Plaintiff relied on defendants’ tax expertise, trusted them to act in his best interests, and believed they possessed superior tax knowledge.
- Plaintiff submitted affidavits alleging defendants changed his tax reporting status without disclosure, constituting a potential fiduciary breach.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court found issues of fiduciary duty may not have been established as a matter of law.
- The Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment, rejecting fiduciary relationship as a matter of law, prompting dissent.
- Dissent argues the affidavits raise genuine issues of material fact about a fiduciary relationship, requiring trial fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary relationship existed as a matter of fact | Iacurci; there is a genuine issue of material fact based on affidavits. | Sax et al.; no fiduciary relationship as a matter of law. | Issue for jury; not law on summary judgment per dissent. |
| Role of burden on summary judgment in fiduciary analysis | Plaintiff; defendants failed to show absence of factual issues; burden on moving party. | Defendants; burden on movant to negate claims; no fiduciary unless proven. | Burden-shifting issue remains factual; summary judgment improper per dissent. |
| Whether long-term tax relationship supports fiduciary status | Length of relationship supports special trust and potential fiduciary duty. | Long relationship alone does not prove fiduciary duty; depends on totality of circumstances. | Factual question; not decided as matter of law per dissent. |
| Whether legal framework allows fiduciary status absent investment advice | Tax preparers may have fiduciary duties under totality-of-circumstances analysis. | No fiduciary duty without investment-advice-type guidance or control. | Factual determination required; flexible approach endorsed by dissent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (2007) (recognizes per se fiduciaries and flexible approach to fiduciary duty)
- Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303 (1987) (trust/confidence framework for fiduciary relationships; fact-specific)
- Biller Associates v. Peterken, 269 Conn. 716 (2004) (examines appellate deference on factual questions; fiduciary existence depends on dominance/dependence)
- Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 777 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (confidential relationship framework; potential fiduciary duties in tax context)
- Green v. H&R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488 (1999) (principal-agent-like relationship in tax services; control and trust factors)