136 Conn. App. 522
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Town of Stratford appeals after trial court verdict for Castater on claims for money had and received and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant Castater was Miron’s assistant mayor’s appointee with a benefits package including vacation, sick leave, and professional development days; unused leaves could be cashed out, but personal/development days could not; mayor had broad authority over employment terms.
- Miron terminated Castater on December 11, 2009 and approved a 60-day cash-out package; December 4, 2009 termination letter set forth benefits, and Miron retroactively amended the benefits to include cash-out for development days and perfect attendance.
- Plaintiff (Town) paid Castater the termination benefits in December 2009 and later sought repayment, contending overpayment and unjust enrichment.
- Castater did not repay and sought counsel fees; state unemployment eligibility was affected by the payment; the court balanced equities and found Castater could retain the funds.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding equity supported retention of payments despite potential lack of mayoral authority to unilaterally alter benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is plaintiff entitled to recover under money had and received? | Stratford argues overpayment; mayor lacked authority to pay; plaintiff should recoup. | Castater argues payments were in good faith and equitable; he acted under authority or good conscience. | Affirmed; equity supports defendant retaining the funds. |
| Is there unjust enrichment by defendant? | Defendant retained funds to plaintiff’s detriment; enrichment unjust. | No detriment to Stratford; payments were taxed; unemployment was delayed; retention equitable. | Affirmed; court did not err in denying unjust enrichment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westport v. Bossert Corp., 165 Conn. 410 (Conn. 1973) (history of money had and received and equitable actions informed by conscience and equity)
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 249 (Conn. 1925) (indebitatus assumpsit as equitable remedy for money had and received when payor is free of obligation)
- Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 231 Conn. 276 (Conn. 1994) (unjust enrichment elements and equitable considerations)
- Ayotte Bros. Construction Co. v. Finney, 42 Conn. App. 578 (Conn. App. 1996) (limited review; equitable determinationsBalancing factors)
- New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 433 (Conn. 2009) (elements of unjust enrichment; burden to prove benefit and detriment)
- Pokorny v. Getta’s Garage, 219 Conn. 439 (Conn. 1991) (unjust enrichment; equity and good conscience)