Stuart v. Stuart
Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 18324.,18324. |
Citation | 996 A.2d 259,297 Conn. 26 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | William A. STUART et al.v.Kenneth J. STUART, Jr., et al. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Sandra J. Akoury, with whom, on the brief, was Paul J. Pacifico, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
William F. Gallagher, New Haven, for the appellee (named defendant).
NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, ZARELLA and BEACH, Js.
In this certified appeal,1 we are called on to determine what standard of proof applies to statutory theft claims brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-564.2 The plaintiffs, William A. Stuart and Jonathan Stuart, appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's application of the clear and convincing standard of proof to the plaintiffs' statutory theft claim against the named defendant, Kenneth J. Stuart, Jr.3 Stuart v. Stuart, 112 Conn.App. 160, 176, 962 A.2d 842 (2009). In their appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the proper standard of proof to be applied to statutory theft claims under § 52-564 is the preponderance of the evidence standard. We agree with the plaintiffs and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The following relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. “The plaintiffs and [the defendant], are the only children and heirs of Kenneth J. Stuart, Sr. (Stuart, Sr.). In 1991, Stuart, Sr., executed an estate plan including the establishment and funding of a trust and the execution of a will that, upon his death, would have distributed his assets equally among his three sons. Stuart, Sr., had been the art director of Curtis Publishing Company, the publisher of The Saturday Evening Post, and, subsequently, the art director of ... Reader's Digest. He had collected many antiques and [amassed] a significant art collection, including several famous works by Norman Rockwell.
4
In addition, in recognition of the fact that the issue of the proper standard of proof to be applied to statutory theft claims was then pending before this court in Howard v. MacDonald, 270 Conn. 111, 851 A.2d 1142 (2004), 6 the trial court determined what additional damages would be subject to trebling if the preponderance of the evidence standard were applied to the plaintiffs' claim. The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Elson, No. 31511.
......See 125 Conn.App. 353 Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26, 45-46, 996 A.2d 259 (2010) (Appellate Court, as intermediate court of appeal, not at liberty to overrule, reevaluate or ......
-
Kaddah v. Comm'r of Corr.
...habeas, we stay our hand as a matter of common law with respect to disturbing the availability of that remedy. Cf. Stuart v. Stuart , 297 Conn. 26, 47, 996 A.2d 259 (2010) (discussing particular applicability of doctrine of legislative acquiescence when "legislature affirmatively amended th......
-
State v. Ashby
...This is especially true because the legislature has made unrelated amendments to the relevant statutory scheme. See Stuart v. Stuart , 297 Conn. 26, 47, 996 A.2d 259 (2010) (argument in favor of "[l]egislative concurrence is particularly strong [when] the legislature makes unrelated amendme......
-
White v. Comm'r of Corr.
...bound to apply the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in accordance with Supreme Court precedent. See Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26, 45–46, 996 A.2d 259 (2010) ("it is manifest to our hierarchical judicial system that [our Supreme Court] has the final say on matters of Connectic......
-
Business Litigation: 2011 in Review
...of proof in statutory theft cases is by "clear and convincing evidence." 51 Conn. Sup. at 574, 575. But in 2010, in Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26,996 A.2d 259 (2010), the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that such claims need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, by 2011,......
-
Tort Developments in 2010
...at 126. 6. 119 Conn. App. 827, 828-30, 990 A.2d 362 (2010). 7. Id. at 830. 8. Id. at 831-32. 9. Id. at 832. 10. Id. at 831-33. 11. Id. 12. 297 Conn. 26, 28-29, 996 A.2d 259 (2010). 13. General Statutes § 52-564 provides: "Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives ......
-
2010 Appellate Review
...hanging from a rearview mirror was not an obstruction of the driver's view). 19. 297 Conn. 540, 1 A.3d 1033 (2010). 20. Id. at 562. 21. 297 Conn. 26, 996 A.2d 259 (2010). 22. 297 Conn. at 76-77. 23. 296 Conn. 80, 995 A.2d 1 (2010). The authors' office represented the plaintiff. 24. Id. at 1......
-
Business Litigation: 2010 in Review
...under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, 82 Conn. B.J. 389 (2008). 6. Naples, 295 Conn. at 239, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(b). 7. 297 Conn. 26, 996 A.2d 259 (2010). 8. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564. 9. Stuart v. Stuart, 112 Conn. App. 160, 962 A.2d 842 (2009). 10. The author analyzed the r......