Levinson v. Lawrence, 162 Conn.App. 548

Background

Levinson (plaintiff) paid Lawrence (defendant) $61,123.50 in Feb 2007 so she could satisfy a promissory note to her former husband; no written agreement memorializing any ownership interest was executed.
Parties had an on-and-off relationship; Levinson later moved into Lawrence’s house (June 2008) and paid for various improvements and household items during cohabitation.
After relationship broke down, Levinson presented an unsigned multi‑page “Agreement” claiming a 50% interest; eviction and criminal/protective‑order events followed and multiple lawsuits ensued.
Levinson sued asserting a resulting trust and unjust enrichment; Lawrence counterclaimed for slander of title based on two lis pendens Levinson recorded (2010, 2011).
Trial court found no resulting trust, denied unjust enrichment, and awarded Lawrence statutory damages and attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49‑8 for purportedly untimely releases of the lis pendens.
On appeal, the court affirmed the rulings on resulting trust and unjust enrichment, but reversed the § 49‑8 award and directed judgment for Levinson on the slander‑of‑title counterclaim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of resulting trust	Levinson: his $61,123.50 payment + later expenditures created a mutual agreement entitling him to 50% of the property	Lawrence: payment was a loan/temporary measure to pay ex‑husband; no intent to grant ownership; no signed agreement	No resulting trust; trial court’s factual credibility findings supported (intent lacking)
Unjust enrichment	Levinson: Lawrence was unjustly enriched by his payments and improvements	Lawrence: improvements were made primarily for joint/Levinson’s benefit and were officiously conferred; no unjust retention	No unjust enrichment; expenditures were officious and for shared benefit
Slander of title / § 49‑8 damages & fees	Levinson: lis pendens were filed to protect his claim; he was not liable under § 49‑8 because notices were not judicially determined invalid or "of no effect" before release	Lawrence: she demanded release; delays entitled her to mandatory statutory damages and fees under § 49‑8	Reversed: § 49‑8 damages unavailable because statutory scheme requires lis pendens be judicially discharged or otherwise shown to be of no effect before § 49‑8 remedy applies; judgment for Levinson on counterclaim
Effect of July 1, 2013 stipulation on damages	Levinson: defendant breached stipulation, so she should not recover	Lawrence: stipulation did not waive § 49‑8 claim and did not impose a deadline to market/sell	Court held § 49‑8 remedy nonetheless improper here; disposition turned on statutory timing/conditions, not stipulation

Key Cases Cited

Neubig v. Luanci Construction, LLC, 124 Conn. App. 425 (2010) (resulting‑trust presumption is factual and may be rebutted by contrary intent)
Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375 (1987) (equitable remedies available between nonmarital partners absent contract founded on meretricious consideration)
Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (2004) (trial judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility in bench trials)
Waterview Site Services, Inc. v. Pay Day, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 561 (2010) (unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy reviewed for clear error)
Schirmer v. Souza, 126 Conn. App. 759 (2011) (benefit officiously conferred is generally not unjust enrichment)
Stein v. Tong, 117 Conn. App. 19 (2009) (factfinder’s credibility determinations control on appeal)
Lee v. Duncan, 88 Conn. App. 319 (2005) (purpose and effect of lis pendens as a prejudgment encumbrance)
Dunham v. Dunham, 217 Conn. 24 (1991) (statutory process for discharging invalid lis pendens and recording order of discharge)
Kukanskis v. Griffith, 180 Conn. 501 (1980) (limited circumstances under which lis pendens may be discharged)
Stone‑Krete Construction, Inc. v. Eder, 280 Conn. 672 (2006) (statutory construction principles: ascertain and effectuate legislature’s intent)