Byrne v. Burke
Citation | 112 Conn.App. 262,962 A.2d 825 |
Decision Date | 20 January 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 29237.,29237. |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Nicholas J. BYRNE, Jr. v. Martin B. BURKE et al. |
Nicholas J. Byrne, Jr., pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Dawn E. Alderucci, with whom, on the brief, were Kerry R. Callahan, David R. Makarewicz and Daniel B. Fitzgerald, Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).
David P. Atkins, with whom, on the brief, was Marcy Tench Stovall, New Haven, for the appellee (defendant Mark R. Spurling).
DiPENTIMA, HARPER and BERDON, Js.
The plaintiff, Nicholas J. Byrne, Jr., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Martin B. Burke and Mark R. Spurling.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, (1) on the civil conspiracy count against Burke, that the plaintiff's cause of action was time barred; (2) on the breach of fiduciary duty count, that the plaintiff did not establish that Burke owed him a fiduciary duty; (3) on the civil conspiracy count against Burke, that Burke's deposition testimony in a probate hearing and testimony during a court hearing were not inconsistent; (4) on the vexatious litigation count, that the Probate Court's ruling, in favor of Spurling's client, is conclusive evidence of probable cause to initiate probate proceedings; (5) on the vexatious litigation count, that the plaintiff did not prove a claim for vexatious litigation; and (6) on the civil conspiracy count against Spurling, that the plaintiff's conspiracy count was based on the same facts that the court relied on to dismiss the vexatious litigation count. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's claims. The court found the following facts to be undisputed. "In April, 1997, Burke, who is an attorney, prepared a will for the plaintiff's father, Nicholas Byrne, Sr., which the plaintiff's father signed in Burke's office on April 7, 1997 [1997 will]. The 1997 will left the testator's residence in equal shares to his two sons and left his residuary estate in equal shares to his daughters. The 1997 will specifically excluded one of the testator's daughters, Monica Banta. The will appointed the plaintiff executor and was witnessed by a paralegal employed by Burke and an employee of another tenant of the building where Burke's law office was located.
In the present appeal, the plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a four count complaint directed against Burke and Spurling.2 The complaint, dated November 16, 2006, concerned the defendants' actions while the plaintiff was defending the 1997 will before the Probate Court. In his amended complaint, filed on December 26, 2006, the plaintiff alleged in count one, a claim of vexatious litigation against Spurling, in count two, a claim of conspiracy against both Spurling and Burke, and in counts three and four, a claim of breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, respectively, against Burke.
Thereafter, each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Spurling argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on counts one and two on the ground that the probate proceeding he initiated was decided in favor of his client and established probable cause. Burke argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on all counts directed against him on the ground that the tort claims were time barred by General Statutes § 52-577.3
In his objection to Spurling's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that questions of material fact existed, such as whether Spurling had probable cause to initiate a probate proceeding and whether Spurling conspired with Burke to have the Probate Court reject the 1997 will on the basis of Burke's allegedly false deposition testimony. In his objection to Burke's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that questions of material fact existed, such as whether Burke fraudulently concealed a January, 1997 letter that, the plaintiff posits, subsequently, aided the Superior Court in the probate appeal in determining that the 1997 will was valid. The plaintiff further argued that Burke's concealment resulted in fraud that tolled, under General Statutes § 52-595,4 the statute of limitations.
On July 7, 2007, the court heard oral arguments and, by memorandum of decision filed September 4, 2007, granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment and thereafter rendered judgment in the defendants' favor. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
Before considering the plaintiff's claims on appeal, we first note our well established standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Viola v. O'Dell, 108 Conn.App. 760, 763-64, 950 A.2d 539 (2008).
Campbell v. Plymouth, 74 Conn.App. 67, 80-81, 811 A.2d 243 (2002).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Precision Mechanical Services, Inc. v. T.J. Pfund Associates, Inc., 109 Conn.App. 560, 564, 952 A.2d 818, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 940, 959 A.2d 1007 (2008). (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiner v. Clinton, 106 Conn.App. 379, 383, 942 A.2d 469 (2008).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexander v. Vernon, 101 Conn.App. 477, 482-83, 923 A.2d 748 (2007).
On all counts directed against Burke, the court concluded that the plaintiff's causes of action were time barred. Although the plaintiff's claims can be viewed as distinct and separate, our consideration of the first claim regarding the statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turner v. Boyle
...founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of."); Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn.App. 262, 271–72, 962 A.2d 825, cert. denied, 290 Conn. 923, 966 A.2d 235 (2009). " Section 52–577 is a statute of repose," and its limitation cannot b......
-
Adm'r v. Ferraro
...fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn.App. 262, 267-68, 962 A.2d 825, cert. denied, 290 Conn. 923, 966 A.2d 235 (2009). We now set forth the relevant workers' compensation law from Massac......
- Charlotte Hungerford Hosp. v. Creed
-
Mullin v. Guidant Corp., 29829.
... ... genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn.App. 262, 267, 962 A.2d 825, cert. denied, 290 Conn. 923, 966 A.2d 235 (2009). Our review of the trial court's decision on a ... ...
-
TABLE OF CASES
...80 Conn. App. 536 (2003) 2-1 Byrne v. Burke, No. X03CV065009290S, 2007 WL 2741372 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007) 9-8 Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn. App. 262 (2009) 9-8 Byrne v. Grasso, 118 Conn. App. 444 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 934, 987 (2010) 8-2:2.1 Bysiewicz v. Dinardo, 298 Conn. 748 (2010) ......
-
CHAPTER 9 - 9-8 MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES
...the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial court. See also Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn. App. 262 (2009).[100] Cusano v. Grudberg, 2003 WL 21771987 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 21, 2003). "A release, compromise or accord and satisfaction wit......