189 Conn. App. 124
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Yuille hired Parnoff in 1998; after a 2004 arbitration award she disputed Parnoff’s claimed 40% contingency fee and agreed to let Parnoff take $125,000 while the balance remained in escrow pending resolution.
- Parnoff sued Yuille over fees; appeals and related litigation (Parnoff I and II) ultimately led to rulings limiting Parnoff’s fee recovery and confirmed Yuille’s entitlement to the disputed escrow funds.
- In 2010 Parnoff transferred $363,960.87 from the escrow/trust account to his personal account; Yuille later sued (2013) alleging conversion, statutory theft (treble damages), and breach of fiduciary duty.
- At the 2017 trial, Parnoff’s counsel moved to withdraw due to a breakdown in communications; the court granted withdrawal and denied Parnoff a continuance to obtain new counsel, finding Parnoff caused the breakdown and had not produced a medical letter showing inability to appear.
- The jury found for Yuille on conversion and statutory theft (awarding treble damages and prejudgment interest) and for Parnoff on breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court entered judgment for Yuille for $1,480,336.37.
- Parnoff appealed, arguing (1) abuse of discretion in denying a continuance after counsel withdrew, (2) irreconcilable verdicts (conversion/theft vs. no breach of fiduciary duty), and (3) erroneous refusal to submit his special defense of waiver to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by ordering trial to proceed after counsel withdrew without giving Parnoff time to obtain new counsel | Yuille argued docket management, case age, and Parnoff’s conduct justified proceeding | Parnoff argued the case was complex, prior delays were justified, he lacked counsel and medical proof of incapacity, so denial prejudiced his defense | No abuse: court found Parnoff caused counsel breakdown, failed to provide required medical letter, case was old and not legally complex, and docket management justified proceeding |
| Whether verdicts (conversion/theft for Yuille; no breach of fiduciary duty for Parnoff) are irreconcilably inconsistent | Yuille: jury could find conversion/theft for funds Parnoff held separate from an attorney-client fiduciary relationship at time of transfer | Parnoff: conversion/theft required fiduciary relationship; jury’s “no” on advancing his own interest contradicts findings for conversion/theft | Not irreconcilable: reasonable hypothesis jury found Parnoff was not acting as Yuille’s attorney when he converted funds, so answers can be harmonized |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to submit special defense of waiver to jury | Yuille: evidence did not show waiver; plaintiff had continuously defended her rights | Parnoff: prior affidavit and statements (splitting fee with Mooney) showed Yuille waived claims to the disputed funds or assigned them to Mooney | No error: evidence did not show intentional, knowing relinquishment of Yuille’s rights; affidavit did not prove waiver; court properly declined charge |
| Whether any other special defenses required submission to jury | Yuille: no supporting evidence for special defenses | Parnoff: pleaded multiple equitable/mitigation defenses | Court properly refused to charge special defenses not supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 8 (trial court has broad discretion on continuances and docket management)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255 (harmonize jury answers to interrogatories; standards for vacating verdict based on inconsistency)
- Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 745 (elements and distinctions between conversion and statutory theft)
- National Publishing Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 664 (jury charge: only submit defenses reasonably supported by evidence)
- Kregos v. Stone, 88 Conn. App. 459 (verdict that is inconsistent or ambiguous should be set aside)
- Parnoff v. Yuille, 139 Conn. App. 147 (prior appellate decision in the related fee dispute)
- Parnoff v. Yuille, 163 Conn. App. 273 (subsequent appellate decision addressing quantum meruit and fee recovery)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Parnoff, 324 Conn. 505 (disciplinary proceeding and formal reprimand relevant to background)