Wellspring Foundation, Inc. v. Maloney, No. Cv 00 0082283s (Nov. 14, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Wellspring Foundation, Inc. v. Maloney, No. Cv 00 0082283s (Nov. 14, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15229

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 14, 2001

DocketNo. CV 00 0082283S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15229 (Wellspring Foundation, Inc. v. Maloney, No. Cv 00 0082283s (Nov. 14, 2001)) 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

Wellspring Foundation, Inc. v. Maloney, No. Cv 00 0082283s (Nov. 14, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15229 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT TERESA MALONEY'S MOTION TO STRIKE CT Page 15230 Motion to Strike the first count is granted because "[a]n implied contract can only exist where there is no express one." Biller Associatesv. Rte. 156 Realty Co., 52 Conn. App. 18, 30 (1999).

Motion to Strike the third count is denied because "[c]laims of breach of an express contract and those of unjust enrichment based on quasi-contract are allowable in one complaint as alternative theories of recovery." Dreier v. Upjohn Co., 196 Conn. 242, 245 (1985); Fuessenichv. DiNardo, 195 Conn. 144, 151 (1985).

Motion to Strike the fourth count is denied because the court has no information as to what, if anything, was required of the defendant Maloney by the divorce decree as regards the plaintiff's alleged services.

Cremins, J.

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