Patrowicz v. Peloquin, 190 Conn. App. 124

Plaintiffs Richard and Deborah Patrowicz loaned the defendant, Barry Peloquin, money over time while allowing him to store logging equipment on their property; the trial court found eighteen advances totaling $48,518.66, with $48,168.66 unpaid.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract (and other counts later abandoned); Peloquin represented himself and denied the allegations and asserted five special defenses including the statute of frauds (§ 52-550(a)(6)).
At a one-day bench trial, Deborah left the courtroom during testimony and did not return; after plaintiffs rested, Peloquin sought a continuance to subpoena Deborah but had not previously issued a subpoena for her and waited until midtrial to request one.
Peloquin declined to testify himself; he attempted to introduce an affidavit but the court refused because he did not testify and would not be subject to cross-examination.
The trial court found the plaintiffs proved the loans by a preponderance of the evidence, rejected Peloquin’s defenses, concluded that part performance prevented application of the statute of frauds, and entered judgment for $48,168.66.
On appeal Peloquin challenged (1) denial of the midtrial continuance to subpoena Deborah and (2) the court’s handling of an alleged variance between complaint damages and the amount pursued at trial vis-à-vis the statute of frauds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a midtrial continuance to subpoena Deborah	Plaintiffs: court properly managed caseflow; defendant had opportunity and failed to subpoena earlier	Peloquin: denial violated due process; he needed Deborah’s testimony and should have been allowed time to subpoena her	Denial not an abuse of discretion — request came after plaintiffs rested, was untimely, and court reasonably viewed it as dilatory given one-day setting and Peloquin’s failure to subpoena earlier
Whether statute of frauds bars enforcement of alleged oral loan agreement exceeding $50,000	Plaintiffs: part performance (eighteen loans, reliance, and transfers) satisfies evidentiary function and estops defendant from asserting statute of frauds	Peloquin: plaintiffs reduced claimed damages at trial below $50,000 to avoid statute of frauds and should have been required to amend complaint	Court held part performance precluded the statute of frauds; variance in pleaded vs. proven amount was immaterial and not reversible error

State v. Rivera, 268 Conn. 351 (principle that continuance decisions are committed to trial court discretion)
Miller v. Appellate Court, 320 Conn. 759 (importance of caseflow management and enforcing trial schedules)
Kervick v. Silver Hill Hospital, 309 Conn. 688 (judicial expectation that cases proceed on assigned day)
SS-II, LLC v. Bridge Street Associates, 293 Conn. 287 (doctrine of part performance as exception to statute of frauds)
Great Country Bank v. Pastore, 241 Conn. 423 (denial of continuance appropriate where request is dilatory)
Tedesco v. Stamford, 215 Conn. 450 (only material variances between pleadings and proof warrant reversal)