Stuart v. Freiberg
142 Conn. App. 684
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs William A. Stuart and Jonathan Stuart sue Freiberg for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, accounting malpractice, and CUTPA relating to Freiberg’s accounting for Stuart, Sr.’s estate and Stuart & Sons.
- Stuart, Sr. died; a living trust and will created a complex family estate with Stuart & Sons as general partners and the Norman Rockwell Museum as a junior partner.
- Stuart & Sons assets and estate funds were shifted, and Stuart, Jr. allegedly used estate assets for personal purposes.
- Prior litigation (1993 Stuart v. Stuart) challenged Stuart, Jr.’s fiduciary duties; the 2004 judgment largely favored plaintiffs, nullifying Stuart & Sons and ordering asset transfers.
- After additional litigation (Stuart v. Snyder, 2006–2010), Freiberg served as accountant and prepared estate reports; plaintiffs filed four-count amended complaint in 2004, and Freiberg moved for summary judgment in 2011.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on all counts in the amended complaint; plaintiffs moved to reargue; appellate court reversed as to fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and accounting malpractice, but affirmed as to CUTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact on reliance for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. | Stuart asserts reliance is a factual question; plaintiffs relied on Freiberg’s statements. | Freiberg argues lack of admissible evidence showing reliance; plaintiffs delayed action due to other litigation. | Fraud and negligent misrepresentation issues must go to trial for reliance. |
| Whether Freiberg owed a duty and whether the plaintiffs suffered injury in the accounting malpractice claim. | Intended beneficiaries relied on Freiberg; duty arises from privity/foreseeable beneficiary; damages shown. | No duty to plaintiffs; no causation or injury shown; trial court properly granted summary judgment. | Issue of duty and damages genuine; summary judgment improper on accounting malpractice. |
| Whether CUTPA applies to Freiberg’s accounting conduct. | Accounting billing practices and exploitation of entrepreneurial aspects fall under CUTPA. | CUTPA limits apply to entrepreneurial aspects; accounting malpractice not covered. | CUTPA not applicable to professional accounting malpractice; summary judgment affirmed on CUTPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner v. Brochendorff, 136 Conn. App. 24 (2012) (elements of fraud and damages require clear proof; reliance standard applied)
- Coppola Construction Co. v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 134 Conn. App. 203 (2012) (negligent misrepresentation—reasonable reliance and pecuniary harm)
- Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (1987) (professional malpractice without privity permissible if intended/foreseeable beneficiary)
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 (1997) (entrepreneurial CUTPA scope; professional negligence not CUTPA unless commercial aspect)