Wright v. Wright, No. 4000024 (CT 5/27/2005)
| Decision Date | 27 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4000024,4000024 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sherry Wright v. Walter Wright, Jr. Opinion No.: 89049. |
This internecine litigation between the plaintiff, Sherry Wright, and the defendant, Walter Wright, Jr., one of her two brothers,1 arises out of their respective handling of the property of their now-deceased parents toward the end of the parents' lives.
On July 1, 2004, the plaintiff filed a four-count complaint against the defendant. The first count alleges that on February 27, 2001, the parties' parents, both of whom were ill and elderly, conveyed their home in Hamden to the defendant under an oral agreement that the property would be held by the defendant in trust for the benefit of all three siblings. At the time, the plaintiff resided in the home with the parents in order to care for them. The complaint alleges that the defendant had a confidential relationship with his parents, and that the defendant attempted to evict the plaintiff from the home. The plaintiff claims that the defendant will be unjustly enriched if he is permitted to keep the home, and she seeks the imposition of a constructive trust thereon.
Prior to trial, the parties agreed to the imposition of a constructive trust on the family home. The parties further requested that the court withhold the entry of judgment on the first count because of outstanding tax issues. The court accedes to this request. Accordingly, the first count is not presently before the court.
The second count alleges that prior to April 15, 2004, the plaintiff and her mother maintained a joint bank account in both of their names. The plaintiff claims that in order to induce their mother to withdraw this money from the joint account, the defendant intentionally misrepresented to their mother that the plaintiff was stealing her funds. In reliance on this false representation, the mother closed the account on April 15, 2004, and gave the remaining monies therein to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the defendant committed fraud, as a result of which she lost the money held in the joint account.
The third count incorporates the allegations of the second count and claims that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the monies he received from the joint account. The fourth count, which is a claim for conversion, also incorporates the allegations of the second count and alleges that the defendant's conduct deprived the plaintiff of funds in which she had an ownership interest. The plaintiff seeks money damages.
The defendant has answered the plaintiff's complaint and filed two special defenses. The first special defense alleges that the plaintiff has "unclean hands" because she wrongfully appropriated her mother's monies. The second special defense is in the nature of a set off.
In addition, the defendant has filed a four-count counterclaim. The first count of the counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff misappropriated and misspent her mother's money prior to the latter's death in April 2004. The fourth count alleges that this conduct constitutes civil theft, pursuant to General Statutes §52-564.2 The second count alleges that shortly before her father's death in late 2002, the plaintiff moved into the family home, ostensibly to care for her elderly parents, and she has remained living there subsequent to their deaths, contrary to the wishes of the defendant, who is the title owner of the property. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has not paid rent, failed to pay for utilities, reprogrammed the alarm code, thwarted the defendant's attempts to market the property for sale and kept the defendant out of possession. The third count alleges that these actions of the plaintiff constitute a tortious trespass. The defendant claims money damages, a set off of any damages he may owe the plaintiff, treble damages pursuant to General Statutes §52-564 and any other legal or equitable relief the court deems proper.
The plaintiff has answered the counterclaim and interposed a special defense that the third and fourth counts thereof are without probable cause and were asserted with malice, in violation of General Statutes §52-568.3
The case was tried to the court which now finds the following facts. The defendant, a successful professional, is the oldest child of Walter Wright Sr. and Lillian Wright. In 2001, as the parents were both approaching their eighties and were in poor health, they transferred the family home in Hamden to him, in the hope that they eventually might qualify for Medicare.
Sometime earlier, the parents had transferred a residence on Colby Court in New Haven to the defendant. They had initially purchased the residence on Colby Court in their own names for the plaintiff, with the understanding that the plaintiff would pay the mortgage. The plaintiff, who had a child and had been separated from her husband for several years, was unable to do so. The mortgagee foreclosed on the property and took possession of it.
In 2002, the parents were in need of care and assistance in living in their home and the plaintiff, who had long been employed as a medical assistant for a New Haven physician, and her son were in need of a place to live. That year, the plaintiff moved back into the family home. The parties do not dispute that the plaintiff "did administer care to [her parents] throughout the remainder of their lives."4
On February 19, 2003, the parties' father died of cancer. At the time of the father's death, the parents had a checking account and a savings account that were in both of their names. The following day, the plaintiff had her name added on both accounts. The plaintiff proceeded to handle all of her mother's finances, using both the checking and savings accounts. The monies contained in these two accounts derived from three sources: (1) a total $25,588.15, transferred from the accounts in her parents' names, prior to her father's death, (2) the mother's monthly social security checks, and (3) the proceeds from a personal injury claim that was settled on behalf of the mother prior to her death.
Curiously, although the plaintiff had her name added to the checking account, on every check she drew on the account she signed her mother's name. She drew three checks, payable to herself in the amounts of $300, $500 and $700. She drew another check payable to a dentist, Dr. James Camarano, in the amount of $750 for dental services for herself.
After their father's death, the parties' mother received social security and pension benefits in the amount of $24,015. Of this amount, $4,360.61 was not deposited. The plaintiff did not maintain records of her expenditures on behalf of her mother and the household, and the disposition of this sum is not documented.
In January 2003, attorneys for the mother settled a personal injury claim on her behalf and forwarded her a draft in the approximate amount of $30,000. The plaintiff signed her mother's name on the check, negotiated it, but deposited only $18,000 in the savings account. She claims that the balance of $12,000 was a gift to her from her mother.
Additional facts will be recited as necessary.
The second count of the complaint alleges that the defendant intentionally misrepresented to her mother that the plaintiff had been stealing her funds, thereby inducing her to withdraw $32,154.33 from the joint account she had with the plaintiff and give it to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that this was fraud.
"The essential elements of an action in common law fraud . . . are that (1) a false representation was made as a statement of fact; (2) it was untrue and known to be untrue by the party making it; (3) it was made to induce the other party to act upon it; and (4) the other party did so act upon that false representation to his injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766, 777, 802 A.2d 44 (2002).
The following additional facts are necessary to the disposition of this count. Using a power of attorney his mother had given him, the defendant examined statements of the checking and savings bank accounts. The defendant was concerned because he considered his sister to be financially irresponsible, because monies appeared to be unaccounted for, and because the plaintiff had not paid the premiums for the mother's homeowners insurance and certain of her utility bills. The defendant called for a family meeting, which occurred at the family home in mid-April 2004. Present at the meeting, in addition to the plaintiff and the defendant, were the parties' mother, their younger brother Stephen, and Stephen's wife, Tressie.
The plaintiff claims that at this meeting, the defendant told their mother that the plaintiff had been stealing funds from her. The defendant denied this and testified that he questioned the plaintiff about the discrepancy in the accounts. Moreover, the defendant claims that the denouement of the meeting was an understanding that the defendant would be taking control of their mother's accounts finances, an understanding in which the plaintiff acquiesced if not consented. Several days after the meeting, the defendant took his mother to the bank, closed the existing savings and opened a new account on which the plaintiff was not named as an owner. Ten days later, on April 25, 2004, the parties' mother died.
Preliminarily, the defendant argues that the plaintiff lacks standing to assert this claim because she was not the person to whom the alleged misrepresentation was made. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial