Date: 03-16-1999

Case Style: RICHARD D. JONES ET AL. v. EDGARDO IPPOLITI ET AL.

Case Number: AC 15401

Judge: Rittenband

Court: Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, Connecticut.

Plaintiff's Attorney: Eliot B. Gersten, with Jeanine Dumont, Hartford, Connecticut.

Defendant's Attorney: Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Bridgeport, Connecticut, with Paul L. Bollo , Danbury, Connecticut, and Maximino Medina, Jr., Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Description: In 1990, Edgardo Ippoliti , a shareholder of the defendant corporation (Eppoliti, Inc.), a masonry subcontractor, retained the plaintiffs to represent the defendant corporation in a dispute with Turner Construction Company, a general contractor, concerning the construction of the Yale Center for Molecular Medicine in New Haven. As the Ippoliti account fell in arrears, the plaintiffs suggested that the defendants agree to reduce the balance of their account to a promissory note. On March 1, 1991, the defendant corporation and Ippoliti jointly and severally executed a promissory note, which had a maturity date of December 31, 1991, in favor of the plaintiffs. On December 17, 1991, and through subsequent statements to the plaintiffs, Ippoliti promised that he would be individually liable on a new promissory note covering the balance then due, $90,950.21, which included the unpaid original note. Ippoliti failed to execute the new promissory note and made false representations in order to induce the plaintiffs to continue to represent the defendants in the Turner matter. The defendants thereafter failed to tender payment to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs commenced the underlying action in 1993 to collect fees for services rendered, primarily in connection with the defendant corporation's dispute with Turner Construction Company, together with interest and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, failure to pay a promissory note, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent conveyance, fraud and violation of CUTPA. The defendants counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, conversion and violation of CUTPA.

Outcome: Following a lengthy trial, the trial court found for the plaintiffs on each count of the complaint and on each count of the counterclaim. Trial court awarded damages in the amount of $155,882.28, judgment interest in the amount of $56,890.97, and attorney’s fees of $163,134.80.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Client appealed and the law firm cross appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees for legal services performed by the plaintiffs and their employees in assisting outside counsel in the prosecution of this action. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the plaintiffs entered no appearance on their own behalf, and, even had they done so, pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney's fees. Trial court affirmed in all other respects. See: 727 A.2nd 713 (Conn. App 1999). The date shown above is the date of the appellate court decision and not the trial date. Reported by JAB.