126 Conn. App. 171
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Gerald Marciano consulted attorney Neil W. Kraner to preserve his inheritance and obtain title to Barkhamsted property before his parents’ deaths, revealing assets and Medicaid planning concerns.
- Kraner advised transferring all parental assets to a disabled child to preserve value while qualifying for Medicaid; this was memorialized in an April 14, 2000 letter referencing a transfer to a disabled son (the plaintiff’s brother, Francis Marciano, Jr.).
- Kraner arranged for Francis Jr. to accept transfers and then to transfer the Barkhamsted property to Marciano; Kraner handled probate proceedings to appoint Marciano conservator for Francis Sr.’s estate.
- At closing on October 26, 2000, Marciano executed fiduciary deeds transferring Barkhamsted and Torrington properties to Francis Jr.; Francis Jr. executed a quitclaim deed of Barkhamsted to Marciano, which Kraner said would be recorded.
- The Department of Social Services later informed Kraner that recording the quitclaim would be illegal and could trigger criminal prosecution; the quitclaim deed was destroyed and Medicaid application was not approved pending documentation.
- In 2005, Marciano filed suit for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice; the trial court granted a directed verdict on the malpractice claim and later set aside the breach of fiduciary duty verdict due to lack of expert testimony and causation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach of fiduciary duty. | Marciano argues no expert needed for fiduciary duties under attorney-client framework. | Kraner and Bickford contend expert testimony is necessary to define fiduciary duties and breach here. | Expert testimony required; verdict proper to be set aside without it. |
| Whether there was a definable fiduciary duty and breach by the defendants. | Marciano asserts a fiduciary duty existed and was breached by failure to record the quitclaim and manage assets. | Defendants assert insufficient evidence of any defined fiduciary duty and breach. | No evidence of a defined fiduciary duty or its breach supported the verdict. |
| Whether the plaintiff showed damages causally connected to the alleged fiduciary breach. | Marciano contends the misconduct caused damages through threat to assets and inheritance. | Defendants argue no causal link; recording quitclaim would have impacted Medicaid and asset distribution in a way that defeats damages. | No causal connection proven; verdict set aside. |
| Whether the verdict for breach of fiduciary duty was against the evidence as a matter of law. | Marciano maintains the jury reasonably found a breach under fiduciary duty. | Defendants urge the verdict lacks evidentiary support given no expert testimony on attorney-client duty. | Verdict not supported by the evidence; properly set aside. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 279 Conn. 622 (2006) (standard for setting aside a jury verdict when element missing)
- Hunt v. Prior, 236 Conn. 421 (1996) (evidence view and standard for jury verdicts)
- Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675 (1988) (injustice or palpably against the evidence standard)
- Celentano v. Grudberg, 76 Conn.App. 119 (2003) (expert testimony sometimes required in professional duty claims)
- St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc., 84 Conn.App. 88 (2004) (expert testimony in attorney-client duty context)
- Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166 (1993) (attorney-client fiduciary duties and standards of care)