Jalbert v. Mulligan
153 Conn.App. 124
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Bruce and Pamela Jalbert sued attorney Lawrence Mulligan for misappropriating $135,000 plus $50,000 from a settlement and for deceit related to Chicago Title’s defense in Warren Enterprises litigation.
- Mulligan had represented them from 1995–2008 and arranged a barter with Bruce Jalbert’s construction work in exchange for legal services if Chicago Title did not represent them.
- Chicago Title eventually provided a defense for the Jalberts in Warren Enterprises, contrary to Mulligan’s representations to the Jalberts.
- Trial court credited the Jalberts’ credibility and found Mulligan violated duties as fiduciary, engaging in deception and conversion.
- The trial court awarded damages including treble damages for statutory theft, prejudgment interest, CUTPA damages, and attorney’s fees; Mulligan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chicago Title assumed a defense for Jalberts in Warren Enterprises | Jalberts relied on Mulligan’s misrepresentation | Marcus advised otherwise and Chicago Title did not defend | Fact issue; record supports trial court findings (not clearly erroneous). |
| Whether the barter agreement was enforceable and the terms were clear | Barter was valid and based on hours, no hourly differential | Terms unclear; lacked consideration and definiteness | Not clearly erroneous; barter terms supported; enforceable. |
| Whether Mulligan was entitled to fees for pre-defense work | No fees because Chicago Title assumed defense | Some pre-defense services justified compensation | Not entitled to pre-defense fees; credibility concerns undermine claim. |
| Whether there was a CUTPA violation linking to fees | CUTPA damages arising from deceptive conduct | Insufficient pleading/analysis for CUTPA claim | Claim preserved and supported; CUTPA damages affirmed. |
| Whether the overall findings were clearly erroneous | Findings supported by record and credibility determinations | Weight of evidence supports different result | No reversible error; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (2005) (appellate review of factual findings; clearly erroneous standard)
- United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (2002) (credibility and witness evaluation for trial court decisions)
- Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc., 285 Conn. 716 (2008) (deferral to trial court credibility assessments)
- Klein v. Chatfield, 166 Conn. 76 (1974) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Talton v. Warden, 33 Conn. App. 171 (1993) (weighing witness credibility is for the trier of fact)