188 Conn. App. 343
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In June 2007 Manzo-Ill retained Schoonmaker, George & Blomberg, P.C. to represent her in a marital dissolution; the dissolution judgment issued August 19, 2008.
- Schoonmaker (lead partner) sent a January 13, 2010 letter saying he planned to retire effective April 1, 2010; Manzo-Ill thereafter retained successor counsel, who filed an "in lieu of" appearance on March 11, 2010.
- Manzo-Ill sued the firm for legal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation; process was delivered to a marshal May 20, 2013 and served June 10, 2013.
- The firm asserted the § 52-577 three-year statute of limitations and moved to bifurcate so the limitations issue would be tried before the merits; the court granted bifurcation and tried the limitations question.
- Trial court found the attorney-client relationship ended by March 11, 2010 (formal and de facto termination: successor appearance, plaintiff’s acknowledgment, hiring new counsel) and that post-March 2010 billing entries did not establish continuous representation.
- Trial court entered judgment for the firm as the malpractice and fraud claims were time-barred; the court denied Manzo-Ill’s motion to reargue that sought judicial notice of an appellate appearance and Manzo-Ill appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled § 52-577 after March 11, 2010 | DeLeo requires specific methods to show termination; Manzo-Ill argued representation continued past March 11, 2010 based on billing entries and an appellate appearance | Representation ended March 11, 2010 when successor counsel filed in lieu of appearance and plaintiff acknowledged hiring new counsel; post-March billings were ministerial or errors | Court held representation ended March 11, 2010 (formal/de facto termination). Tolling did not apply; claims barred by § 52-577 |
| Whether the trial court misapplied DeLeo v. Nusbaum in determining termination | Manzo-Ill argued the court narrowed DeLeo by expanding ways a relationship may end | Defendant argued DeLeo permits either formal or de facto termination and court applied it correctly | Court applied DeLeo correctly: DeLeo lists examples but does not limit termination methods; focus is whether relationship ended |
| Whether the billing entries and post-retirement communications established ongoing substantive representation | Manzo-Ill pointed to fifteen billing/time entries and some communications after March 11, 2010 | Defendant characterized entries as clerical, error, billing transitions, or non-substantive courtesy communications | Court found the entries largely non-substantive or erroneous and insufficient to prove continuous representation |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reargue based on failure to take judicial notice of an appellate appearance | Manzo-Ill argued the firm’s automatic appearance in the dissolution appeal (until June 9, 2010) showed representation continued beyond March 11, 2010 | Defendant argued the issue was not raised at trial and reargue was an improper attempt to reopen the record | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion: motion to reargue cannot be used to present arguments/evidence not raised at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588 (Conn. 2003) (adopts continuous representation doctrine; representation continues until formal or de facto termination; provides standard for tolling statute of limitations)
- Rosenfield v. Rogin, Nassau, Caplan, Lassman & Hirtle, LLC, 69 Conn. App. 151 (Conn. App. 2002) (earlier recognition of continuous representation doctrine)
- Straw Pond Associates, LLC v. Fitzpatrick, Mariano & Santos, P.C., 167 Conn. App. 691 (Conn. App. 2016) (continuous-representation tolling is mixed question of law and fact; defer to trial court’s factual findings)
- Jones v. State, 328 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2018) (standard of review for mixed questions: factual findings deferred to, legal import reviewed de novo)