217 Conn.App. 106
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- 1981: Settlor created a revocable trust containing, inter alia, antique automobiles; remainder beneficiaries were his three children (plaintiff Stephen Tunick, defendant Barbara Tunick, and Roberta).
- Plaintiff and Barbara were original cotrustees; Sylvia (the settlor’s wife) was later added; settlor died in 1997; plaintiff removed as trustee in 2004; Sylvia and Barbara served as cotrustees until removed in June 2013.
- Sylvia died in 2015; plaintiff (a remainder beneficiary) sued in 2016 alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil theft, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract related to dissipation/misappropriation of trust assets (including antique automobiles).
- Trial court struck the breach of contract count; plaintiff amended and added an unjust enrichment count; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on tort counts as time barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577, left unjust enrichment pending, then later struck that unjust enrichment count as time barred.
- On appeal this court: (1) reversed the striking of the unjust enrichment count (holding unjust enrichment is equitable and governed by laches, not § 52-577) and (2) affirmed summary judgment on the tort-based counts because the continuing-course-of-conduct tolling doctrine did not create a genuine factual dispute (the failure to account for two antique automobiles/parts did not constitute a continuous series of events producing a cumulative injury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of unjust enrichment count | Unjust enrichment is equitable; timeliness governed by laches, not the 3-year tort statute (§ 52-577) | § 52-577 applies because the complaint pleads tort-like fiduciary breaches | Reversed trial court: unjust enrichment is equitable and not subject to § 52-577; laches governs timeliness |
| Whether § 52-577 tolled by continuing-course-of-conduct for fiduciary/tort claims | Tolling applies because defendants engaged in a continuing course of misconduct (including failure to account for antique automobiles) up through and after 2013 | Claims accrued by 2013 when trustees ceased acting; plaintiff has no evidentiary basis of continuous breach after removal; statute not tolled | Affirmed summary judgment on tort counts: no genuine issue that continuing-course tolling applied; alleged failure to account for autos/parts did not create a continuous cumulative injury |
| Procedural vehicle for statute-of-limitations defense | (Preserved) plaintiff noted motions to strike are generally improper to raise SOL | Defendants raised timeliness in motions to strike/summary judgment | Court observed motion to strike is not normally the correct vehicle for SOL defenses (Forbes), but resolved substantive timeliness questions on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Reclaimant Corp. v. Deutsch, 332 Conn. 590 (2019) (unjust enrichment is an equitable claim; laches, not statutory limitations, governs timeliness)
- Tunick v. Tunick, 201 Conn. App. 512 (2020) (prior panel opinion addressing continuing-course-of-conduct tolling and factual sufficiency re: antique automobiles)
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806 (2005) (standard of review for statute-of-limitations questions)
- Forbes v. Ballaro, 31 Conn. App. 235 (1993) (motion to strike is generally not the proper vehicle to raise statute-of-limitations defense)
- Schirmer v. Souza, 126 Conn. App. 759 (2011) (elements required to prove unjust enrichment)