224 Conn.App. 758
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiff Justine Lyons was the longtime girlfriend of Alfred Ducharme (the decedent), both Connecticut residents, who died in December 2020.
- Ducharme owned property in Vermont which was sold in 2020; the sale involved Birmingham Law Office, LLC (Vermont-based, representing Ducharme) and Marylou Scofield, PC (also Vermont-based, representing the Massachusetts buyer).
- Lyons had no ownership in the Vermont property and was not a party to the sale, but the decedent instructed that the sale proceeds be sent to her bank account.
- The proceeds were not wired to Lyons due to incorrect account details; after Ducharme’s death, the proceeds were held in escrow by a Connecticut attorney for the estate.
- Lyons sued both law firms and attorneys for negligence and other claims, in Connecticut Superior Court; both sets of defendant attorneys moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction under the Connecticut long-arm statute, § 52-59b.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction; Lyons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under § 52-59b(a)(1): Transacting business in Connecticut | Defendants transacted business by representing a CT resident and communicating with CT lawyers | Legal services were for a Vermont property, performed in Vermont, with only incidental contacts in Connecticut | No personal jurisdiction; communications and payment for out-of-state legal work insufficient |
| Personal jurisdiction under § 52-59b(a)(2): Tortious act in Connecticut | Defendants committed torts (misrepresentation, improper transfer) causing harm in CT | No tort occurred in CT; actions occurred in VT and any harm was derivative | No personal jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show tortious act in CT |
| Personal jurisdiction under § 52-59b(a)(3): Tortious act outside CT causing injury in CT, plus business/revenue in CT or interstate commerce | Websites and client base show substantial revenue from CT/interstate commerce or regular solicitation of CT business | Minimal CT revenue, passive websites, and lack of CT targeted business; essentially a Vermont-focused practice | No personal jurisdiction; revenue and solicitation evidence too weak |
| Sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut for due process | Defendants had sufficient contacts as a result of representing a CT resident and related communications | Contacts were too incidental; not purposefully directed to CT | Court did not reach this issue due to lack of statutory basis for jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenblit v. Danaher, 206 Conn. 125 (communications with CT resident insufficient for personal jurisdiction over out-of-state attorney)
- Ryan v. Cerullo, 282 Conn. 109 (substantial revenue and purposeful availment required for long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state professional)
- North Sails Group, LLC v. Boards & More GmbH, 340 Conn. 266 (articulating statutory and constitutional two-step for personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Green v. Simmons, 100 Conn. App. 600 (mail/telephone contacts insufficient for transacting business in CT under long-arm statute)
- Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287 (totality of circumstances, not rigid formula, governs long-arm analysis)