163 Conn.App. 594
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Ruth Tyler created an irrevocable trust (Oct. 8, 2004) naming Richard Tatoian trustee; trust terminated at her death (Apr. 1, 2010) and residue distributed to her sons. Jay received nothing due to outstanding loans to Ruth.
- Jay Tyler sued his brothers and Tatoian raising claims including trust modification for undue influence, negligent failure to provide accountings while settlor was alive, breaches of prudent-investor and diversification duties, and failure to hold an investment advisor liable.
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment on most counts (Aug. 22, 2013) but on reargument (Sept. 19, 2013) vacated its no-duty-to-account ruling as to remainder beneficiaries, leaving the accounting-duty issue for trial.
- Before the initial appeal was briefed, the remaining claims were tried; the jury returned a general verdict for Tatoian (Oct. 24, 2013). Plaintiffs did not appeal the jury verdict or file an amended appeal challenging it.
- This appeal concerns whether any claims against Tatoian remained pending after the appellate dismissal of the plaintiffs’ initial appeal (dismissed for lack of final judgment) and whether the trial court correctly held that all claims were resolved by trial or abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were any claims against Tatoian still pending after the appellate dismissal of plaintiffs’ initial appeal? | Some accounting-based damage claims remained unresolved and thus were pending when the initial appeal was dismissed. | No claims were pending; all were either tried to verdict or abandoned by plaintiffs. | Held: No claims were pending — resolved by trial verdict or abandoned. |
| Does a jury general verdict for defendant presumptively resolve all pending claims? | Plaintiffs contended certain accounting claims were not tried and thus not resolved by the general verdict. | A general verdict presumptively resolves all issues submitted to the jury; absent a transcript plaintiffs bore the burden to show otherwise. | Held: General verdict presumptively resolves instructed claims; absence of transcript does not save unappealed claims. |
| Can plaintiffs resurrect claims by arguing the trial court’s reargument ruling required full trials on all related counts? | The reargument reversal required jury resolution of the accounting-duty issue and thus trial of all counts materially based on that duty. | Any such counts were either tried or abandoned; plaintiffs failed to request instructions or appeal instructional error and thus forfeited claims. | Held: Plaintiffs abandoned or accepted verdict; failure to request instructions or to appeal forfeits claims. |
| Does the earlier appellate decision (Tyler v. Tyler) mean claims remained pending at time of dismissal? | Plaintiffs read Tyler to mean this court found claims still pending at the time the appeal was dismissed. | Finality for appellate jurisdiction is measured at time the appeal is filed; Tyler held the appealed summary judgment was not final at filing time. | Held: Tyler concerned finality at time of filing; it did not establish that claims remained pending at time of dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (Conn. 1993) (general verdict rule: a general jury verdict presumptively resolves all issues submitted when no interrogatories requested)
- Correia v. Rowland, 263 Conn. 453 (Conn. 2003) (mixed questions of law and fact reviewed plenarily)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 266 Conn. 108 (Conn. 2003) (issues inadequately briefed or cursorily argued are deemed abandoned)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (Conn. App. 2011) (final-judgment analysis measured at time appeal is filed)
- Solek v. Commissioner of Correction, 107 Conn. App. 473 (Conn. App. 2008) (standard for plenary review on mixed law/fact issues)
- Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn. App. 472 (Conn. App. 2010) (jurisdiction of appellate court limited to appeals from final judgments)