Straw Pond Associates, LLC v. Fitzpatrick, Mariano & Santos, P.C.
145 A.3d 292
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Straw Pond entities) retained Fitzpatrick and his firm in 2005 to obtain land-use approvals for a senior housing project, including sewer capacity from Middlebury Water Pollution Control Authority (sewer authority).
- The sewer authority sent a conditional capacity approval letter in 2005 (the 2005 letter) with conditions (notably ~$2.057M hookup fees and timing requirements) and asked plaintiffs to sign and return it.
- Plaintiffs assert Fitzpatrick failed to communicate the 2005 letter, subsequent inquiries by the sewer authority (2006–2007), and an important November 2007 meeting; the sewer authority rescinded approval at that meeting and later refused reinstatement.
- Plaintiffs appealed the rescission; that sewer appeal was dismissed in March 2011. Plaintiffs sued Fitzpatrick and the firm for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in June 2011. Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the three-year statute of limitations and absence of causation or fiduciary-breach facts.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to causation and that plaintiffs’ fiduciary-duty count alleged only ordinary negligence; continuous representation doctrine did not toll the limitations period because plaintiffs had retained other counsel in late 2007.
- On appeal the Appellate Court reversed as to the negligence count (insufficient resolution of fact issues and unresolved questions about tolling), but affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary-duty count for lack of factual allegations showing disloyalty or conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court improperly decide credibility/factual disputes on summary judgment (causation)? | Plaintiffs: court resolved credibility (credited Fitzpatrick over Nelson) rather than identifying genuine issues about failures to communicate 2005 letter, 2006–07 inquiries, and Nov. 2007 meeting. | Defendants: evidence (affidavits, plaintiffs’ sewer-appeal briefs) shows plaintiffs refused conditions and were aware of matters; no genuine dispute on causation. | Reversed as to negligence: court impermissibly resolved credibility and focused too narrowly on the 2005 letter; genuine issues of material fact exist about what was communicated and whether attendance at Nov. 2007 meeting would have changed outcome. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ malpractice claims are time-barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577 or tolled by continuous representation doctrine | Plaintiffs: continuous representation tolled limitations because defendants continued to represent them through the Aug. 2009 global settlement conference; defendants could still mitigate harm. | Defendants: plaintiffs learned of the rescission by Dec. 2007 and retained other counsel (Fuller, Pearson), which de facto terminated Fitzpatrick’s representation re: sewer capacity, so claims are barred. | Reversed as to negligence on statute bar ground: factual disputes exist whether representation continued and whether tolling applies; plaintiffs bear burden to raise genuine issue that tolling applies. Case remanded for factfinding. |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a viable breach of fiduciary duty claim separate from negligence | Plaintiffs: alleged defendants put other interests ahead of plaintiffs and failed to disclose conflicts (representation of other sewer applicants/Naugatuck authority). | Defendants: complaint alleges only negligence-type facts; Connecticut law requires factual allegations showing disloyalty/acts implicating honesty or loyalty for fiduciary claim. | Affirmed: breach of fiduciary duty count insufficient as pleaded — mere conclusory allegations of disloyalty/conflict without factual support do not state a separate fiduciary claim. |
| Use of plaintiffs’ sewer-appeal briefs as admissions on summary judgment | Plaintiffs: statements in other proceeding are not judicial admissions and cannot be used to foreclose issues. | Defendants: sewer-appeal briefs show plaintiffs refused to sign 2005 letter and thus are evidentiary admissions that undercut causation. | Court may consider those briefs as evidential admissions (not conclusive judicial admissions); but plaintiffs needed to counter them with evidence. Trial court did not err in considering the briefs, though it erred elsewhere by resolving credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588 (Conn. 2003) (adopted continuous representation doctrine for malpractice during litigation; tolling requires same-matter continued representation and lack of plaintiff knowledge or ability to mitigate)
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48 (Conn. 1998) (professional negligence does not automatically give rise to a separate fiduciary-duty claim; fiduciary claim requires factual allegations of disloyalty/honesty breaches)
- Cefaratti v. Aranow, 321 Conn. 637 (Conn. 2016) (plaintiff bears burden to show genuine factual dispute that continuing-course-of-treatment tolls statute of limitations)
- Targonski v. Clebowicz, 142 Conn. App. 97 (Conn. App. 2013) (continuous representation can toll limitations outside litigation when attorney can still mitigate harm; factual inquiry required)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 83 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2004) (distinguishes judicial admissions from evidential admissions; pleadings in other proceedings may be admissible as evidentiary admissions)
- Watts v. Chittenden, 301 Conn. 575 (Conn. 2011) (recognized continuing course of conduct doctrine in tort and professional malpractice contexts)