151 Conn.App. 39
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Town paid defendant a final ‘cash-out’ of accrued leave under mayor Miron; pay was authorized by Miron and reflected on a W-2; new administration later sought debt repayment for the cash-out.
- Plaintiff alleged money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion, seeking return of the $4,802.86 overpayment.
- Court found Miron exceeded authority or not did not affect the outcome; court concluded defendant retained cash-out in good conscience.
- Court held the town’s unjust enrichment claim failed because defendant paid taxes on the cash-out and no detriment shown.
- Court awarded defendant attorney’s fees for bad-faith litigation against the town, relying on Castater/Wentland/Hirschfeld framework.
- Town failed to prove detriment or lack of entitlement under unjust enrichment; equity favored defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miron had authority to authorize the cash-out | Town contends Miron exceeded authority | Miron authorized under at-will agreement, or otherwise within consideration | Not necessary to decide; court found defendant retained cash-out in good conscience. |
| Whether defendant was unjustly enriched at town’s expense | Overpayment harmed town and should be recovered | Town failed to prove lack of entitlement or detriment; taxes paid by defendant | Unjust enrichment claim failed; inequitable to require restitution. |
| Whether attorney’s fees were warranted for bad-faith litigation | Town acted in good faith; no bad faith shown | Town pursued colorless, noncolorable claims after Castater; bad faith shown | Attorney’s fees awarded to defendant; bad-faith litigation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stratford v. Castater, 136 Conn. App. 522 (2012) (recovery/entitlement principles for cash-out payments; unjust enrichment analysis)
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 249 (1925) (equitable recovery principles; money had and received framework)
- Monroe National Bank v. Catlin, 82 Conn. 227 (1909) (payor may retain funds paid with knowledge of facts if no unconscientious retainer)
- Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548 (1849) (payment not recoverable when legal rights understood; good conscience retained)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364 (2011) (bad-faith exception to American rule requires colorable claim and specific factual findings)
- Wentland v. American Equity Ins. Co., 267 Conn. 592 (2004) (appellate review of attorney’s fees under abuse-of-discretion standard)