Isenburg v. Isenburg
177 A.3d 583
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Elizabeth Isenburg and Matthew Isenburg cohabited for ~14 years (1998–2012); they never married though Elizabeth legally changed her surname to his.
- Matthew owned an extensive photographic collection acquired long before their relationship; he sold it in 2012 for $15 million. The relationship ended months after that sale.
- Elizabeth sued after the breakup alleging express and implied contracts, promissory estoppel, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and constructive/resulting trust claims tied to promises about sharing income, assets, and support.
- At trial the court found the relationship was social, not business; it awarded Elizabeth certain gifted personal items and returned some of her property, but denied claims to sale proceeds, joint account funds, a one-half interest in Matthew’s home, and other major monetary relief.
- Elizabeth appealed, arguing (inter alia) erroneous exclusion of exhibits, failure to recuse, erroneous factual findings rejecting contract and fiduciary claims, and inadequate remedial relief; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary exclusion | Court excluded large portions of a document compendium (bank account records, CDs, promissory note) | Documents were properly excluded or irrelevant | No error — appellate record shows those documents were admitted; claim fails |
| Recusal | Judge should have recused sua sponte because as a married man he was biased against an unmarried cohabitant | No basis to question judge's impartiality; no timely motion to disqualify | No abuse of discretion — no objective basis for reasonable person to doubt impartiality |
| Existence of contract | There was an express or implied contract that Elizabeth would contribute to household/businesses in exchange for half ownership/income | No promises concerning the photographic collection or business interests; relationship was social; plaintiff made no meaningful business contributions | Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings that no contract existed were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Fiduciary duty / breach | Defendant owed and breached fiduciary duty by inducing dependency, controlling accounts, and withdrawing funds | Relationship was social; any financial arrangements were for joint benefit during relationship, not fiduciary obligations | Affirmed — no fiduciary duty found; alternate business-relationship theory was unpreserved on appeal |
| Remedies / damages | Court should have awarded dividends, proceeds, account funds, promissory note, life-insurance benefits, interest in will, $1.5M buyout | Relief awarded was appropriate based on proofs; many claims concerned separate entities or unproven promises | No abuse of discretion — trial court’s remedy choices supported by findings; many claimed items lacked legal entitlement or proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Dionisio, 317 Conn. 498 (discretionary standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto, 317 Conn. 565 (existence of contract is a question of fact)
- State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (judge's independent obligation to recuse sua sponte under Practice Book)
- Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner, 325 Conn. 737 (standard of review for trial court factual findings)
- Stefanoni v. Darien Little League, Inc., 160 Conn. App. 457 (burden on party seeking disqualification; objective reasonableness standard)
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Munsill-Borden Mansion, LLC, 147 Conn. App. 30 (appellate review limitation: will not review claims not raised at trial)
- Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172 (cannot review a nonexistent ruling)