Traystman, Coric & Keramidas v. Daigle
Decision Date | 07 September 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 24040) |
Citation | 84 Conn. App. 843,855 A.2d 996 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | TRAYSTMAN, CORIC AND KERAMIDAS v. ANDREW J. DAIGLE |
Lloyd L. Langhammer, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Martin M. Rutchik, with whom was Sharon L. Gibbs, for the appellee (defendant).
In this action on a promissory note to pay $26,873 for legal services, the plaintiff law firm, Traystman, Coric and Keramidas, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, concluding that the note was void and unenforceable. The issue on appeal is whether the court properly found that the note was signed under duress.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The court found the following facts. The plaintiff represented the defendant, Andrew J. Daigle, in his divorce case. A second year associate from the firm, Scott McGowan, handled the defendant's two day divorce trial. After the first day of trial, April 10, 2002, McGowan told the defendant that he must sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, representing amounts then owed to the firm, or else he would withdraw from the case, and the defendant would be forced either to get another attorney or to proceed by himself. The defendant responded that he wanted another attorney, Martin M. Rutchik,2 to examine the note. McGowan urged the defendant to sign the note and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, the defendant signed the note dated April 10, 2002. The defendant claimed that the words "[d]ated at Norwich, Connecticut, this 12 day of April, 2002," handwritten onto the note above his signature, were written by someone else after he had signed the note. The court concluded that the note was signed under duress. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's findings supporting its conclusion are clearly erroneous. We disagree.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Noble v. White, 66 Conn. App. 54, 57-58, 783 A.2d 1145 (2001).
"Where a party insists on a contractual provision or a payment that he honestly believes he is entitled to receive, unless that belief is without any reasonable basis, his conduct is not wrongful and does not constitute duress or coercion under Connecticut law . . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 59. It is also well settled that "[c]ontracts signed under an attorney's threat to withdraw from the case [are voidable] because of undue influence and the relatively helpless situation of the client, who would otherwise be forced into the often impractical alternative of starting all over again with another attorney who is unfamiliar with the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. v. Beckett, 269 Conn. 613, 653, 850 A.2d 145 (2004).
The plaintiff challenges the court's finding of a wrongful act or threat as required by the special defense of duress. The plaintiff argues that the possibility of signing a promissory note had been discussed with the defendant prior to April 10, 2002, that the note was entered into by the firm with the honest belief that it was entitled to the entire amount of legal fees stated therein and that the resulting transaction was fair to the defendant. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Noble v. White, supra, 66 Conn. App. 60.
On the basis of a review of the entire evidence, we conclude that the court's findings are supported by the evidence and that no error has been made in its conclusion that the defendant signed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey
...Respondent's claim is not analogous to the attorney-threatening-to-withdraw scenario, also identified as a basis for a claim of duress in Traystman Respondent was not at risk of being placed in a helpless situation, with a choice between two intolerable outcomes. To the contrary, the respon......
-
Tulisano v. Town of Rocky Hill, No. CV04-0831299 (Conn. Super. 11/7/2006)
...it impossible for the party to exercise his own free will . . .' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Traystman, Coric & Keramidas v. Daigle, 84 Conn.App. 843, 846, 855 A.2d 996 (2004)." Ace Equipment Sales v. H.O. Penn Machinery Co., 88 Conn.App. 687, 696, 871 A.2d 402 The defendant, howeve......
-
Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Daigle
...The factual background of the underlying action is set forth in the Appellate Court's opinion in Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 84 Conn.App. 843, 844-45, 855 A.2d 996 (2004). In that decision, the Appellate Court considered the enforceability of a promissory note in the amoun......
- Private Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Torres