Rendahl v. Peluso
162 A.3d 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Frances Rendahl died in 2006; defendant Peluso (an attorney) was appointed sole executor and his firm was retained as estate counsel; fees were set as percentage-based engagements (2.5% each as executor and attorney).
- Plaintiff Joy Rendahl (sole beneficiary and administratrix) sued Peluso for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and wilful/wanton/reckless misconduct arising from his administration of the estate; jury trial held after consolidation with related probate appeals.
- Jury initially sent a verdict/interrogatories that suggested findings of breaches and entitlement to punitive damages but left damage amounts blank; interrogatories were unsigned and ambiguous.
- Trial court returned the jury for further deliberations, reinstructed them on damages/nominal damages, and the jury ultimately returned a defendant’s verdict on all counts; plaintiff later discovered the content of the initial interrogatories and moved to set aside the verdict.
- Plaintiff also sought to admit a billing/time-record document (exhibit 88) to prove failure to keep contemporaneous records and as impeachment; the trial court excluded it and denied postverdict motions. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not accepting the jury’s initial verdict and returning the jury to deliberate | The initial verdict showed liability and an award of punitive damages; the court should have accepted it under Practice Book §16‑31 (and Hi‑Ho Tower principle that punitive award can indicate actual loss) | Initial interrogatories were incomplete, unsigned, ambiguous and internally inconsistent; court properly returned jury for clarification | Court did not abuse discretion: initial interrogatories were ambiguous re: damages, so returning jury for clarification was proper and final accepted verdict controlled |
| Whether the court’s supplemental reinstruction was erroneous and prejudicial | Reinstruction conflated liability and damages and effectively forced jury to "start from scratch," prejudicing plaintiff; plaintiff could not object because she was not informed of initial punitive finding | Plaintiff failed to preserve objections (no contemporaneous exceptions/request to charge); counsel could and should have inspected interrogatories or objected when court announced a verdict | Unpreserved; appellate review denied. Even on merits, reinstruction was within court’s discretion to resolve ambiguity |
| Whether juror communication (postverdict letter) or initial interrogatories could be used to impeach verdict | Plaintiff argued juror letter showed jury intended to find for plaintiff and misunderstanding of instructions; this justified relief | Defendant invoked Practice Book §16‑34 prohibiting inquiry into jurors’ mental processes; letter not a basis to set aside verdict | Juror letter did not provide a basis to overturn verdict; court properly refused to rely on juror’s postverdict report to impeach verdict |
| Whether exclusion of exhibit 88 (billing/time records) was abuse of discretion and prejudicial | Exhibit 88 would show failure to keep contemporaneous records, impeach Peluso, evidence of wanton/reckless conduct, and help quantify damages | Exhibit 88 was not material under the operative pleadings: fees were a fixed percentage (so lack of time records did not show breach), and probative value was outweighed by irrelevance or prejudice; plaintiff failed to preserve some evidentiary theories | No abuse of discretion. Even if probative on recordkeeping, failure to keep contemporaneous records did not establish breach here (fixed percentage fee); exclusion harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (2010) (jury may award punitive damages when it finds actual loss even if amount is not calculable; court upheld supplemental instruction clarifying that punitive damages require some actual loss)
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (2010) (standard of review for motions to set aside verdict is abuse of discretion; trial court should be afforded presumptions of correctness)
- Desrosiers v. Henne, 283 Conn. 361 (2007) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; exclusion of evidence requires showing of harmful effect on outcome)
- Tezack v. Fishman & Sons, Inc., 173 Conn. 183 (1977) (trial court may decline to accept an ambiguous or defective verdict and return jury for reconsideration)