Shapero v. Mercede
Decision Date | 17 June 2003 |
Docket Number | (AC 21230). |
Citation | 77 Conn. App. 497,823 A.2d 1263 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | PAUL D. SHAPERO v. FRANK MERCEDE, JR. |
Schaller, Dranginis and Bishop, Js.1
Brenden P. Leydon, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Anthony J. LaBella, with whom, on the brief, was Neal L. Moskow, for the appellee (defendant).
This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. Shapero v. Mercede, 262 Conn. 1, 11, 808 A.2d 666 (2002). In reversing the prior decision of this court,2 our Supreme Court remanded the case to us "for consideration of the plaintiff's claim on cross appeal regarding the propriety of the $5000 [credit]." Id. Before turning to the merits of the claim that we must consider on remand, we first set forth some of the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.
5 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede, supra, 262 Conn. 3-4.
The defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court "improperly (1) awarded the plaintiff damages on his claim for nonpayment of legal fees when the ... referee ... had found that no evidence as to the value of the plaintiff's services had been introduced at the hearing ...." Shapero v. Mercede, 66 Conn. App. 343, 344, 784 A.2d 435 (2001), rev'd, 262 Conn. 1, 808 A.2d 666 (2002). The plaintiff made various arguments in response and also filed a cross appeal, maintaining that the court improperly permitted the defendant to obtain a credit of $5000 when the defendant had not pleaded it as a special defense or setoff. Id. We agreed with the defendant with regard to his first claim and, therefore, declined to address his other claims. Id., 346. We did not reach the plaintiff's claim on the cross appeal.6 Id., 353. Consequently, we reversed the court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the defendant. Id.
Our Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal; see Shapero v. Mercede, 258 Conn. 944, 786 A.2d 430 (2001); reversed our decision; see footnote 2; and remanded the case to this court "for consideration of the plaintiff's claim on cross appeal regarding the propriety of the $5000 [credit]." Shapero v. Mercede, supra, 262 Conn. 11. We conclude that the trial court properly credited the $5000 retainer amount paid by the defendant against the amount of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Our standard of review in cases referred to attorney trial referees is well settled. "A reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . the Appellate Court . . . or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of . . . attorney trial referees. . . . [A]ttorney trial referees and factfinders share the same function . . . whose determination of the facts is reviewable in accordance with well established procedures prior to the rendition of judgment by the court. . . .
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 263 Conn. 191, 201-202, 819 A.2d 227 (2003).
The plaintiff claims that because the defendant did not plead a special defense or setoff regarding the $5000 credit, the court improperly accepted the referee's recommendation to credit the $5000 retainer payment against the amount of the damages awarded to the plaintiff.7 The plaintiff does not contest the referee's factual finding that the defendant paid him the $5000 retainer. Rather, the plaintiff maintains that the $5000 credit recommended by the referee was improper as a matter of law, as the defendant did not plead a special defense or setoff. The plaintiff argues that regardless of whether the $5000 credit is characterized as a defense of payment or as a setoff, it should have been affirmatively pleaded as such, in accordance with Practice Book §§ 10-50 or 10-54.8 The plaintiff contends that by crediting the $5000 retainer payment against the other damages in the absence of such an affirmative pleading by the defendant, the court improperly founded its judgment on facts or issues outside of those raised in the pleadings. We disagree.
At the outset, we note that (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Yellow Page Consultants, Inc. v. Omni Home Health Services, Inc., 59 Conn. App. 194, 200, 756 A.2d 309 (2000). The purpose of a complaint, special defense or counterclaim is to limit the issues at trial, and such pleadings are calculated to prevent surprise. See id.; New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38 Conn. App. 240, 244, 659 A.2d 1226, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 915, 665 A.2d 609 (1995). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Yellow Page Consultants, Inc. v. Omni Home Health Services, Inc., supra, 200; see also Westfall v. Westfall, 46 Conn. App. 182, 185, 698 A.2d 927 (1997) (). Thus, it is clear that "[t]he court is not permitted to decide issues outside of those raised in the pleadings." Yellow Page Consultants, Inc. v. Omni Home Health Services, Inc., supra, 59 Conn. App. 200. "It is equally clear, however, that the court must decide those issues raised in the pleadings." Moulton Bros., Inc. v. Lemieux, 74 Conn. App. 357, 361, 812 A.2d 129 (2002).
The sixth count of the plaintiff's complaint sounds in quantum meruit, and, in that count, the plaintiff himself raises facts relating to the retainer as the predicate for his claim.9 Our Supreme Court has explained that (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede, supra, 262 Conn. 7; see Cole v. Myers, 128 Conn. 223, 230, 21 A.2d 396 (1941).10 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 401, 766 A.2d 416 (2001). Quantum meruit damages provide restitution for amounts not previously paid. See United Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Clearheart Construction Co., 71 Conn. App. 506, 511-12, 802 A.2d 901 (2002); see also Gagne v. Vaccaro, supra, 401; Sidney v. DeVries, 215 Conn. 350, 351-52 n. 1, 575 A.2d 228 (1990); Burns v. Koellmer, supra, 11 Conn. App. 375, 383-85,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moruzzi v. CCC Servs., Inc.
...each other money to apply their mutual debts against each other * * *." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede , 77 Conn.App. 497, 823 A.2d 1263, 1270-71 (2003). In practical terms, Moruzzi and Country owed each other money. Thus, the relationship was as mutual debtors. ¶ 43......
-
MARICULTURE PROD. v. Certain Underwriters
...the absurdity of making A pay B when B in fact owes A." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede, 77 Conn.App. 497, 509, 823 A.2d 1263 (2003). "A set-off is made where the defendant has a debt against the plaintiff arising out of a transaction independent of ......
-
Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC
...must decide those issues raised in the pleadings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede , 77 Conn. App. 497, 503–504, 823 A.2d 1263 (2003). This rationale extends equally to motions. See, e.g., Chang v. Chang , 197 Conn. App. 733, 750–53, 232 A.3d 1186 (......
-
Burke v. Mesniaeff
...and such pleadings are calculated to prevent surprise." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Shapero v. Mercede, 77 Conn. App. 497, 503, 823 A.2d 1263 (2003). We therefore briefly review the allegations of the parties' pleadings as they form the framework of the court's jur......