Herring v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 02 July 2002
• Docket Number: (AC 21352)
• Citation: 805 A.2d 718,70 Conn. App. 649
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: JERRY HERRING v. YVONNE DANIELS ET AL.

70 Conn. App. 649

805 A.2d 718

JERRY HERRING v. YVONNE DANIELS ET AL.

(AC 21352)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 11, 2002.

Officially released July 2, 2002.

Schaller, Bishop and Shea, Js.

Robert J. Shluger, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Valeria L. Caldwell-Gaines, for the appellee (named defendant).

Opinion

SHEA, J.

The plaintiff, Jerry Herring, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Yvonne Daniels, in a partition action in which the plaintiff claims an equitable interest in real property owned by the defendant.¹

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to find that the parties held themselves out to the public as husband and wife, regarded the subject premises as marital property and treated it as such, (2) concluded that two mortgage loans were for the sole benefit of the plaintiff, (3) concluded that the failure of the parties to transfer title to one-half of the subject property to the plaintiff during the course of their relationship was dispositive as to the issue of the parties' intent to treat the property as a shared asset, (4) failed to address the plaintiffs allegation that the parties' conduct evinced an implied agreement to share ownership of the subject property, (5) failed to find that the plaintiff was entitled to a share of certain cash equity removed from the subject property by the defendant and (6) considered special defenses that previously had been stricken. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts were adduced in a trial to the court. The defendant is the record titleholder of real property located at 81 Canterbury Street in Hartford. The defendant first met the plaintiff in 1981, and they had an affair that lasted for approximately six months. During that time, the plaintiff asked the defendant to cosign a $3000 loan for him, which she did.² The parties resumed their relationship in 1985. In early 1987, the plaintiff moved into the house at 81 Canterbury Street and resided there on a semiregular basis until August, 1998, when the defendant obtained a restraining order against the plaintiff.³ During that period, the defendant's daughter and son-in-law also lived in the subject premises. Although the defendant's relatives paid rent to the defendant, the plaintiff did not pay any rent.

During the period in which the plaintiff was living at 81 Canterbury Street, he obtained two loans from his credit union, Hartford Firefighters Federal Credit Union, cosigned by the defendant and secured by mortgages on the defendant's real estate. The first loan was in the amount of $60,000. At the time that loan was obtained, the defendant's property was subject to three encumbrances, a first mortgage to Northeast Savings Bank for $23,327, a second mortgage held by the mortgage brokerage Conn and Conn Company for $11,610, and a lien for $2300 in favor of the state of Connecticut. As a condition to disbursing the loan proceeds, the second mortgage to Conn and Conn Company and the state tax lien had to be paid from the gross proceeds of the loan. The plaintiff received all of the net proceeds of the loan. Beginning in February, 1987, the monthly payments on that loan were made by automatic payroll deduction from the plaintiffs paycheck.

In May, 1993, the parties obtained a second loan with the Hartford Firefighters Federal Credit Union, this time in the amount of $100,000. The proceeds of that loan were used to pay off the first mortgage to Northeast Savings, an outstanding balance to Associated Financial Services for $2388.02 and the balance of the previous credit union loan. The net balance after paying those debts was approximately $60,000. Because the plaintiff was concerned that if the loan proceeds were deposited in an account under his name they would be seized to pay delinquent taxes, the defendant agreed to open a separate account in her name in which to deposit the funds. Accordingly, those proceeds were deposited in an account in the name of the defendant at Bank of Boston. Of those proceeds, the plaintiff received approximately $35,000 over the course of two months. The defendant received a $5000 cash disbursement at the time the check was deposited in the account. Although the record is unclear as to what became of the remaining $20,000, those funds apparently were dissipated as a result of various trips and gambling excursions made at the plaintiffs initiative. The payments on that loan were deducted from the plaintiffs monthly pension payments beginning on June 20, 1993. The outstanding balance on the loan at the time of the plaintiff's last regular payment, in August, 1998, was $56,772.63.

In January, 1999, in an attempt at reconciliation, the plaintiff moved back into the defendant's home. At that time, the plaintiff paid an additional $3500 on the loan, the automatic pension deductions having been previously discontinued. Despite tentative discussions regarding marriage, the reconciliation between the parties proved unsuccessful, and in December, 1999, the plaintiff was again forced to vacate the defendant's house pursuant to a restraining order.

On December 22, 1999, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in three counts alleging an equitable interest in the property on the basis of his having resided there and assumed the mortgage payments, a contractual right based on express, verbal and implied understandings that the ownership of various assets was to be shared, and a claim for restitution based on quantum meruit.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support any of the claims asserted by the plaintiff and accordingly rendered judgment for the defendant. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The plaintiffs first claim on appeal is that the court improperly failed to find that the parties held themselves out to the public as being married, and regarded the subject premises as marital property and treated it as such. The plaintiff argues that the court was required to make such a finding as a matter of law on the basis of the court's subordinate finding that the parties were "cohabiting, unmarried lovers."⁴ Although a court's findings of facts are ordinarily reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, the plaintiffs claim raises a question of law and, therefore, our review is plenary. Lussier v. Spinnato, 69 Conn. App. 136, 144, 794 A.2d 1008 (2002).

In support of his first argument, the plaintiff cites the definition, adopted by our Supreme Court in Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 332, 464 A.2d 780 (1983), that "[c]ohabitation is a dwelling together of man and woman in the same place in the manner of husband and wife." The plaintiff apparently interprets the phrase "in the manner of husband and wife" to suggest that cohabitation is for all intents and purposes synonymous with marriage, and that cohabitation raises all of the same presumptions regarding the treatment of assets as does marriage. Such an interpretation, however, would essentially transform cohabitation into common-law marriage, contrary to the refusal of this state to recognize such relationships. See McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 285, 334 A.2d 437 (1973) ("Although other jurisdictions may recognize common-law marriage or accord legal consequences to informal marriage relationships, Connecticut definitely does not.... It follows that although two persons cohabit and conduct themselves as a married couple, our law neither grants to nor imposes upon them marital status." [Citations omitted.]) "[C]ohabitation alone does not create any contractual relationship or, unlike marriage, impose other legal duties upon the parties." Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 339, 521 A.2d 142 (1987).⁵ Rather, where the parties have established an unmarried, cohabiting relationship, it is the specific conduct of the parties within that relationship that determines their respective rights and obligations, including the treatment of their individual property. See id., 340-41. Any such finding must be determined by reference to the unique circumstances and arrangements between the parties present in each case. Those matters are questions of fact that are within the singular province of the trial court, and can only be determined by evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and weighing conflicting evidence. See Vesce v. Lee, 185 Conn. 328, 335, 441 A.2d 556 (1981).

Accordingly, we conclude that the court was not bound as a matter of law to find that that the parties treated the subject property as a "marital asset" simply on the basis of having found that they were "unmarried, cohabiting lovers."

II

The plaintiff next claims that the court improperly found that the two mortgage loans were for the sole benefit of the plaintiff. We conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to permit the court, as the trier of fact, reasonably to find that the loans benefited the plaintiff rather than the defendant.

"When the factual basis of the court's decision is challenged, the reviewing court must determine whether the facts are supported by the evidence or whether they are clearly erroneous.... In such cases, the trier's determination of fact will be disturbed only in the clearest of circumstances, where its conclusion could not reasonably be reached." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hoffman Fuel Co. of Danbury v. Elliott, 68 Conn. App. 272, 276, 789 A.2d 1149, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 918, 797 A.2d 514 (2002).

It is undisputed that certain encumbrances on the defendant's property were paid out of the gross proceeds of the two loans obtained by the plaintiff in 1987 and 1993. The plaintiff argues that discharging those encumbrances provided the defendant with a benefit and, accordingly, that the court's conclusion that the loans were for the sole benefit of the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence and is clearly erroneous.

A...