Villanueva v. Villanueva
Decision Date | 20 July 2021 |
Docket Number | AC 43619 |
Parties | Javier VILLANUEVA v. Rafael VILLANUEVA |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
John R. Hall, for the appellant (defendant).
Mark M. Kratter, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Moll, Cradle and Clark, Js.
In this case arising from a dispute between two brothers who operated a landscaping business together, the defendant, Rafael Villanueva, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Javier Villanueva, and awarding the plaintiff damages in the amount of one half of the value of the business assets that the defendant maintained following the dissolution of that business. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in finding that (1) an implied partnership existed between the parties, (2) the plaintiff provided credible evidence of his damages, and (3) the plaintiff's action was not barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
The trial court set forth the following relevant facts. "In 2005, [the plaintiff] started a small landscaping company, known as Villanueva Landscaping, that mowed lawns and did some patching and sealing pavement driveways. [The defendant] started working for [the plaintiff] in 2007; [the defendant] worked for him initially as an employee, but as the business grew the brothers became de facto equal partners, sharing the profits, and the management of the business. No written partnership agreement was ever entered into by the brothers. The brothers split their duties, as over time, one crew did landscaping and the other did masonry and tree work. [The plaintiff] worked on increasing the customer base and supervised a masonry/tree crew in the field; [the defendant] took over as bookkeeper and was responsible for paperwork, but also supervised the landscaping crew. The business grew from approximately twelve to fifteen customers during the first years, to approximately fifty customers in 2009, when they purchased a customer list from another landscaper, to approximately eighty-five customers in 2014. The number of workers grew from [the plaintiff] in 2005, to the original crew of two, [the defendant] and [the plaintiff], in 2007, to seven workers divided into two crews of four and three by 2014.
By way of a one count complaint dated June 19, 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action alleging the breach of an "unwritten and unspoken implied contract" between the parties. In response, the defendant filed an answer and three special defenses. By way of special defense, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the three year statute of limitations for an oral contract pursuant to General Statutes § 52-581 and/or the three year statute of limitations for conversion pursuant to General Statutes § 52-577. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of laches and that he was entitled to a setoff by the plaintiff's "retention of certain of the business assets in which both parties had an interest."
On October 30, 2019, following a brief court trial at which both parties testified, the court filed a memorandum of decision, wherein it found that an implied partnership existed between the parties and that the defendant breached the terms of the implied partnership agreement. The court rejected the defendant's special defenses, and awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $86,500, representing one half of the value of the partnership property that had been taken by the defendant. This appeal followed.
The defendant first contends that the court erred in finding an implied partnership agreement between the parties. We disagree.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor , 324 Conn. 245, 258–59, 152 A.3d 470 (2016).
Here, the court found that "there is strong evidence the parties were de facto partners." The court reasoned: "Although perhaps [the] plaintiff initially hired [the] defendant as an employee, the credible evidence is that, in later years, they regarded each other as partners compensated by withdrawals from the business accounts for personal expenses, which may be characterized as draws and distributions; not salary." The court further explained:
The defendant argues that, "[w]hile the actions of the parties as found by the trial court in this matter would appear to provide a basis for finding an implied partnership agreement, such a finding cannot survive the plaintiff's own denial that any such agreement existed." Although the defendant accurately recounts the plaintiff's testimony denying the existence of a partnership agreement, the court's finding that, by his conduct, the plaintiff manifested an intent to operate the business alongside the defendant is amply supported by the record. We therefore conclude that the court's finding of an implied partnership was not clearly erroneous.
The defendant next claims that the court erred in concluding that the plaintiff provided credible evidence of his damages. We are not persuaded.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd.
- Cruz v. Comm'r of Corr.
-
Villanueva v. Villanueva
...the petition.Mark M. Kratter, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 206 Conn. App. 36, ––– A.3d –––– (2021), is ...