DiStefano v. Milardo
Decision Date | 13 December 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 17221.,17221. |
Citation | 276 Conn. 416,886 A.2d 415 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Olga J. DISTEFANO v. Joseph E. MILARDO, Jr., et al. |
Lawrence S. Dressler, New Haven, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael C. Conroy, Hartford, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and BORDEN, KATZ, PALMER and ZARELLA, Js.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that no attorney-client relationship existed between the named defendant, Joseph E. Milardo, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Jozus, Milardo and Thomasson (law firm),1 and the plaintiff's son, Lawrence J. DiStefano, when it instructed the jury on the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff, Olga J. DiStefano, appeals, following our grant of certification from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants. DiStefano v. Milardo, 82 Conn.App. 838, 848, 847 A.2d 1034 (2004). The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the malpractice and breach of contract counts, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the remaining counts of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "The plaintiff and her husband, Sebastian DiStefano, had three children: Steven DiStefano, Lawrence DiStefano and Luann Filer. The defendants represented both Sebastian DiStefano and the plaintiff on various legal matters from 1991 through 1995.
"On July 6, 1998, the plaintiff filed the four count complaint in this action alleging (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress." Id., at 840-41, 847 A.2d 1034. In support of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the plaintiff argued that there was an attorney-client relationship between Milardo and Lawrence DiStefano that created a conflict of interest.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court had "improperly (1) directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the malpractice count, (2) instructed the jury that no attorney-client relationship existed between the defendants and the plaintiff's son, Lawrence J. DiStefano [when charging the jury on the breach of fiduciary count],3 and (3) refused to allow the jury to consider evidence of the standard of care for an attorney for breach of a fiduciary duty." Id., at 839, 847 A.2d 1034. The Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff's first and third claims, which are not at issue in this appeal. Id., at 844, 848, 847 A.2d 1034.
With regard to the second claim, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court properly had charged the jury that no attorney-client relationship existed between Milardo and Lawrence DiStefano. Id., at 845-47, 847 A.2d 1034. We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court properly had instructed the jury that no attorney-client relationship existed between the named defendant, Joseph E. Milardo, Jr., and Lawrence J. DiStefano?" DiStefano v. Milardo, 270 Conn. 908, 853 A.2d 524 (2004).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395, 400, 880 A.2d 151 (2005).
"The court has a duty to submit to the jury no issue upon which the evidence would not reasonably support a finding." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wrinn v. State, 234 Conn. 401, 407-408, 661 A.2d 1034 (1995). "Although it is the jury's right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven ... it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Janusauskas v. Fichman, 264 Conn. 796, 803, 826 A.2d 1066 (2003). The court should, however, submit to the jury "the issues as outlined by the pleadings and as reasonably supported by the evidence." 1 D. Wright, Connecticut Jury Instructions (2d Ed. 1970) § 2, p. 3; see Goodmaster v. Houser, 225 Conn. 637, 648, 625 A.2d 1366 (1993).
When reviewing a trial court's decision that the evidence was not sufficient to support the submission of an issue to the jury, we must consider the evidence produced by the plaintiff in the light most favorable to him. See Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians & Surgeons, P.C., 254 Conn. 131, 135-36, 757 A.2d 516 (2000). Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case entitling the plaintiff to submit a claim to a trier of fact is a question of law over which our review is plenary. See Falker v. Samperi, 190 Conn. 412, 419, 461 A.2d 681 (1983).
"An attorney-client relationship is established when the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received in matters pertinent to his profession." Somma v. Gracey, 15 Conn.App. 371, 379, 544 A.2d 668 (1988). The burden of establishing an attorney-client relationship is on the party claiming the existence of such a relationship. See Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 384, 493 A.2d 193 (1985). Evidence of either a retainer agreement or a contract between the parties is relevant to the determination of its existence. See, e.g., Dubreuil v. Witt, 65 Conn.App. 35, 43-44, 781 A.2d 503 (2001).
In her brief, the plaintiff cites the following facts as evidence that Milardo had an attorney-client relationship with Lawrence DiStefano during the period in which Lawrence DiStefano withdrew funds from her account: (1) Milardo prepared a power of attorney for the plaintiff giving Lawrence DiStefano unlimited gift giving authority; (2) Milardo drafted the plaintiff's will naming Lawrence DiStefano as the sole beneficiary; (3) Milardo prepared a living will for the plaintiff naming Lawrence DiStefano as conservator in the event that the plaintiff became incapacitated; (4) Milardo prepared a trust agreement for the plaintiff naming Lawrence DiStefano as the trustee; (5) Milardo prepared two quitclaim deeds transferring real property from the plaintiff to a trust with Lawrence DiStefano as trustee; (6) Milardo was involved in the sale of the trust properties to third persons, resulting in the transfer of sale proceeds to Lawrence DiStefano as trustee; (7) Milardo provided Lawrence DiStefano with fatherly advice4 about his mother's alcoholism; and (8) Milardo prepared a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burton v. City of Stamford
...the plaintiff to submit a claim to a trier of fact is a question of law over which our review is plenary." DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 422, 886 A.2d 415 (2005). Against that standard, the plaintiff contends that the court should not have directed a verdict because the jury reasonab......
-
Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc.
...however, that whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case is a question of law, not of fact. See DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 422, 886 A.2d 415 (2005). It is arguable that, if the plaintiff had brought only a spoliation action, this court could assume the truth of any alle......
-
Smith v. Town of Greenwich, 17555.
...guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 421, 886 A.2d 415 (2005). "Failure to charge precisely as proposed by a defendant is not error where the point is fairly covered in the charge.......
-
Dilieto v. County Obstetrics And Gynecology Group
...as outlined by the pleadings and as reasonably supported by the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 421, 886 A.2d 415 (2005). It also is true, however, that “[t]he court has a duty to submit to the jury no issue [on] which the evidence would n......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...(Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2021) 1-4 Disciplinary Counsel v. Sporn, 171 Conn. App. 372, 157 A.3d 108 (2017) 1-5 DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416 (2005) 2-10, 8-2:1.3, 8-2:1.4, 8-10:1 Dixon v. Bronson & Reiner, 95 Conn. App. 294 (2006) 8-2:2.1 Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Jamieson, No. NN......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-2 NEGLIGENCE
...Committee v. Carpenter, 2002 WL 31255889 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 10, 2002).[9] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-54. [10] Distefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 422 (2005) (citations omitted).[11] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Resp. 1.5.[12] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251c.[13] Restatement of Law 3d, the Law Governi......
-
Significant Tort Developments in 2005
...until he discussed the matter with the plaintiff.(fn151) After the plaintiff advised that she did not 144 Id. at 550. 145 Id. at 552. 146 276 Conn. 416,417, 886 A. 2d 415 (2005). 147 Id. at 418. 148 Id. at 419. 149 Id. 150 Id. at 423. 151 Id. at 423-24. want a voluntary conservatorship, the......
-
CHAPTER 2 - 2-10 COMMUNICATION WITH REPRESENTED PERSONS
...Institute 2000) (reasonable reliance on lawyer to provide services can create attorney-client relationship).[169] DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416, 423 (2005).[170] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 4.2, Commentary. [171] Monceret v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 455 (Tenn. 2000)......