Masse v. Perez
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 615
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Trust set up by plaintiff's grandmother Velma Krestan naming plaintiff as sole beneficiary and defendant as trustee; trust funded with multiple bank accounts.
- From 1995 to 2001 the defendant expended trust funds for plaintiff’s benefit, depleting the trust.
- On July 16, 2001 the trust valuation dropped to $46,522.54 and the defendant withdrew the remaining funds.
- Plaintiff filed a seven-count amended complaint on February 21, 2008 alleging breach of fiduciary duty, statutory theft, conversion, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and negligent representation.
- Trial to the court on October 6–7, 2010 resulted in judgment for plaintiff on breach of fiduciary duty, statutory theft, conversion and unjust enrichment; treble damages under § 52-564 and 5% interest were awarded, total $206,233.35.
- Defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence for treble damages and improper exclusion of evidence; the court affirmed the award and related evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treble damages for statutory theft were proper. | Perez withdrew funds with intent to deprive Masse, supporting statutory theft. | Withdrawal alone is neutral; no proven intent to deprive. | Yes, treble damages proper; intent inferred from conduct and exhausted trust evidence. |
| Whether the court improperly excluded evidence about state aid eligibility records. | Records could be relevant to credibility and the unclean hands defenses. | Additional records post-2007 would be relevant and cross-examination warranted. | No reversible error; additional records post-2007 were cumulative and not probative; cross-examination appropriately restricted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rana v. Terdjanian, 136 Conn. App. 99 (Conn. App. 2012) (statutory theft requires proof of intent; evidence may infer intent)
- State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 (Conn. App. 1998) (intent may be inferred from defendant’s conduct in larceny cases)
- Suarez-Negrete v. Trotta, 47 Conn. App. 517 (Conn. App. 1998) (unauthorized inter vivos conduct supports statutory theft)
- Chernick v. Johnston, 100 Conn. App. 276 (Conn. App. 2007) (trial court credibility determinations respected on appeal)
- Deegan v. Simmons, 100 Conn. App. 524 (Conn. App. 2007) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Lombardi v. East Haven, 126 Conn. App. 563 (Conn. App. 2011) (relevance and admissibility standard; evidence need not be conclusive)