Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wiederman v. Halpert

Supreme Court of Connecticut

December 17, 2019

Malkie WIEDERMAN
v.
Issac HALPERT et al.

         Argued December 20, 2018.

         Appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, , Brazzel-Massaro, J.

         Kerry M. Wisser, with whom, on the brief, was Sarah Black Lingenheld, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

         Taryn D. Martin, with whom, on the brief, was Robert A. Ziegler, for the appellee (plaintiff).

          Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.[*]

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         [334 Conn. 200] The plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, commenced this action arising out of a real estate investment agreement with the defendants Issac Halpert and Marsha Halpert,[1] seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. After the trial court rendered a judgment of default against the defendants for failing to appear at a trial management conference, it held a hearing to determine damages. On the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff at that hearing, at which

Page 800

the defendants also failed to appear, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $600,892.58 in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Thereafter, the defendants moved to open the judgment rendered against them and to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing it. The trial court, noting both that the defendants received multiple notices to new [334 Conn. 201] and old addresses and that Issac Halpert failed to appear and to testify at the hearing on damages despite being personally served by subpoena, denied their motion. The defendants then appealed from the trial court’s denial of their motion to open, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims because the alleged injuries sustained by her were derivative of the harm suffered by the limited liability companies of which she and the defendants were members, and, as such, the plaintiff lacked standing to recover directly. See Wiederman v. Halpert, 178 Conn.App. 783, 793, 176 A.3d 1242 (2017). The Appellate Court rejected the defendants’ claim, concluding that, because the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from that suffered by the limited liability companies[2] — as she alleged, among other things, that the defendants forged her signature on certain financial documents[3] — the trial court had properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over her direct claims. See id., at 797-98, 176 A.3d 1242. We granted the defendants’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the determination of the trial court that the [334 Conn. 202] plaintiff had standing to sue?" Wiederman v. Halpert, 328 Conn. 906, 177 A.3d 1161 (2018).

          After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.