Newman v. Gosart, No. Cv94-0316466s (Dec. 13, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Newman v. Gosart, No. Cv94-0316466s (Dec. 13, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12655

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1994

DocketNo. CV94-0316466S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12655 (Newman v. Gosart, No. Cv94-0316466s (Dec. 13, 1994)) 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

Newman v. Gosart, No. Cv94-0316466s (Dec. 13, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12655 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an application for appointment of a temporary receiver. The plaintiff claims that he and the defendant entered into a joint venture in a business involved in the recycling of antifreeze. "A joint venture is a special combination of two or more persons who combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge to seek a profit jointly in a single business enterprise without any actual partnership or corporate designation. Lesser v. Smith, 115 Conn. 86, 89, 160 A. 302 (1932);Dolan v. Dolan, 107 Conn. 342, 349, 140 A. 745 (1928). The relationship between contracting parties cannot amount to a joint venture unless the parties so intend." Electronic Associates, Inc.v. Automatic Equipment Development Corp., 185 Conn. 31, 35,440 A.2d 249 (1981). The evidence here, at best, is in equipoise.

The only witnesses at trial were the plaintiff and the defendant. There was no written agreement or any memorialization of the parties' understanding. The parties heretofore had been best friends. The defendant had been the plaintiff's accountant. The plaintiff owned his own car wash business and described himself as an entrepreneur. While it may appear unusual that the plaintiff would make a no interest, unsecured $65,000 loan even to his best friend, after considering all of the evidence and the credibility of the parties, the court so finds.

"It was incumbent upon the plaintiff by a fair preponderance of the evidence to establish the contract upon which he relied and which he had set up in his complaint. On the whole evidence, the court [finds] that he ha[s] failed in his burden." Vigorito v.Allard, 143 Conn. 70, 71-72, 118 A.2d 906 (1955). CT Page 12656

The application for appointment of a temporary receiver is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an application for appointment of a temporary receiver. The plaintiff claims that he and the defendant entered into a joint venture in a business involved in the recycling of antifreeze. "A joint venture is a special combination of two or more persons who combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge to seek a profit jointly in a single business enterprise without any actual partnership or corporate designation. Lesser v. Smith, 115 Conn. 86, 89, 160 A. 302 (1932);Dolan v. Dolan, 107 Conn. 342, 349, 140 A. 745 (1928). The relationship between contracting parties cannot amount to a joint venture unless the parties so intend." Electronic Associates, Inc.v. Automatic Equipment Development Corp., 185 Conn. 31, 35,440 A.2d 249 (1981). The evidence here, at best, is in equipoise.

The only witnesses at trial were the plaintiff and the defendant. There was no written agreement or any memorialization of the parties' understanding. The parties heretofore had been best friends. The defendant had been the plaintiff's accountant. The plaintiff owned his own car wash business and described himself as an entrepreneur. While it may appear unusual that the plaintiff would make a no interest, unsecured $65,000 loan even to his best friend, after considering all of the evidence and the credibility of the parties, the court so finds.

"It was incumbent upon the plaintiff by a fair preponderance of the evidence to establish the contract upon which he relied and which he had set up in his complaint. On the whole evidence, the court [finds] that he ha[s] failed in his burden." Vigorito v.Allard, 143 Conn. 70, 71-72, 118 A.2d 906 (1955). CT Page 12656

The application for appointment of a temporary receiver is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-gosart-no-cv94-0316466s-dec-13-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack