Home/Connecticut Superior Court/Hart v. Mill Plain Auto Body, No. Cv98 035 34 63 (Mar. 18, 1999)

Hart v. Mill Plain Auto Body, No. Cv98 035 34 63 (Mar. 18, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3783
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1999
DocketNo. CV98 035 34 63
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3783 (Hart v. Mill Plain Auto Body, No. Cv98 035 34 63 (Mar. 18, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hart v. Mill Plain Auto Body, No. Cv98 035 34 63 (Mar. 18, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3783 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (#106)
First Count. Granted. While these defendants may have been guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty as officers and directors of the corporation they can only be held personally liable if their misconduct is based on a fraudulent act. Banks v. Vito.19 Conn. App. 256, 263 (1989).

Fraud is defined in Ballentine's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. at 496 (1969) as "deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended by inducing another to part with property or surrender some legal right." Not only is this count absent any such allegations but it does not even contain the term "fraud" or "fraudulent". On the other hand, a mere allegation of fraud without supporting issuable facts is inadequate.

Second Count. Denied. Unlike the first count this count alleges that the individual defendants entered into an agreement in their personal capacities and not as corporate officers or directors.

Third Count. Granted. This count is absent allegations which are essential to take the plaintiff's case out of the general rule that requires that the plaintiff must have had a contractual commitment under which his employment could be terminated without just cause. Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corporation,40 Conn. App. 725, 730 (1996).

Fourth Count. Denied. The plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to satisfy the "wilful, malicious, oppressive" elements of the tort of tortious interference. Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting,Corp., 47 Conn. App. 764, 769 (1998).

Fifth Count. Granted. While reasonable persons could differ over whether each of the claimed acts of misconduct were "outrageous", the plaintiff has failed to allege anything but a conclusion that he suffered "severe emotional distress" Westport Bank Trust Co.v. Corcoran, Mallin and Aresco, 221 Conn. 490, 495 (1992).

Sixth Count. Denied. The allegations are sufficient to enable a trier of fact to find that the defendants conduct was unreasonable.

Seventh Count. Denied. With respect to those counts which have not been stricken, the plaintiff has pleaded legally sufficient causes of action against the individuals who, as officers and directors, are presumed to be acting on behalf of the corporate CT Page 3785 defendants with whom they are associated.

Eighth Count. Denied. All that is required under § 33-896(a) for corporate dissolution is an allegation that those in control of the corporation have acted illegally.

THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Westport Bank & Trust Co. v. Corcoran
605 A.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
Banks v. Vito
562 A.2d 71 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)
Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp.
673 A.2d 573 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1996)
Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp.
706 A.2d 1379 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-mill-plain-auto-body-no-cv98-035-34-63-mar-18-1999-connsuperct-1999.