139 Conn. App. 386
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Iacurci sued Sax and the accounting firm for professional negligence and malpractice, filing the four-count complaint on November 10, 2009.
- Sax allegedly changed Iacurci’s tax filing status on returns for 1999–2005, shifting from real estate investor to real estate business, causing adverse tax effects.
- A successor firm amended 2003–2005 returns in February 2007 to portray Iacurci as a real estate investor, and the IRS audit upheld that status.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the last act was the April 17, 2006 tax returns and the suit was timely under § 52-577; the plaintiff countered with fraudulent concealment tolling under § 52-595.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, shifting the burden to Iacurci to show fraudulent concealment, and relied on Walsh’s affidavit to find no fiduciary relationship and no concealment elements.
- On appeal, the majority affirmed, holding no genuine issue existed as to fiduciary relationship and that the plaintiff failed to prove all elements of fraudulent concealment to toll the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-595 fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations | Iacurci contends tolling applies if fiduciary duties exist and concealment occurred. | Sax and firm argue no tolling because no concealment and no fiduciary duty; burden not shifted. | Affirmed; tolling not shown; no genuine issue as to concealment elements. |
| Whether a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants | There was a fiduciary relationship based on trust, reliance, and defendants’ superior tax expertise. | Accountants’ tax-preparer role does not automatically create a fiduciary relationship; evidence insufficient. | No fiduciary relationship established as a matter of law; relationships was typical accountant-client. |
| Whether the trial court properly shifted the burden of proof on fiduciary/concealment issues at summary judgment | If fiduciary duty existed, burden should shift to defendants to show absence of concealment elements. | Court correctly placed burden on plaintiff to show elements of fraudulent concealment; no fiduciary existed to shift burden. | Court’s burden-shifting analysis affirmed; no genuine issue on fiduciary existence and concealment elements. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the record on the fraudulent concealment elements | Walsh’s affidavit creates fact issues on fiduciary duty and non-disclosure intent. | Plaintiff failed to present evidence of actual knowledge, intentional concealment, or delay. | Summary judgment proper; plaintiff failed to prove all elements of § 52-595. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (Connecticut 2007) (elements of fraudulent concealment; fiduciary nondisclosure permissible)
- Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) (fiduciary burden shifts to fiduciary to prove fair dealing)
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (Connecticut 2007) (fraudulent concealment requires proof of concealment elements)
- Murphy v. Wakelee, 247 Conn. 396 (Connecticut 1998) (burden of proving fair dealing when fiduciary duty exists; higher standard)
- Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 251 Conn. 59 (Connecticut 1999) (fiduciary relationship is fact-specific and not all professional relationships are fiduciary)
- Haas v. Haas, 137 Conn. App. 424 (Connecticut Appellate 2012) (long-term professional relationships do not automatically create fiduciary duties)
- Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303 (Connecticut 1987) (fiduciary duty standard in Connecticut constructive unfairness)