DocketNumber: No. 091004
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 7770
Judges: PITTMAN, J.
Filed Date: 8/26/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In June 1981, the plaintiffs retained the defendant law firm to institute a lawsuit against DiNardo for damages for breach of contract. In September 1981, the defendants did so, filing a complaint and obtaining a prejudgment remedy against DiNardo and one of his business entities for $53,000. The PJR attached certain parcels of land in the Avalon Farms development in Litchfield that everyone assumed was owned by DiNardo, but which had, in fact, been transferred by him in January 1979 to another corporation of which he was a principal, Gold Key Builders, Inc.
The plaintiffs obtained a judgment in May 1983 against DiNardo for $40,712.50, and promptly filed a judgment lien on the same parcels. DiNardo appealed the judgment, but the Supreme Court affirmed in February 1985.
In 1987, it became clear to the plaintiffs and defendant here that they could not foreclose on the attached property to satisfy the judgment because it had been owned since January 1979 by a different corporate entity. In September 1987, plaintiffs, represented by the defendant law firm, brought an action alleging fraudulent conveyance against DiNardo and Gold Key, but the court (Pickett, J.) held that the action was barred by the three year statute of limitation.
The plaintiffs now brings this action against the defendant CT Page 7771 for malpractice and breach of contract in its work on the legal and land title matters, essentially alleging that had the defendant acted according to the standard of care, it would have discovered in September 1981 that it had an inadequate prejudgment remedy. There was still time then to search for other assets to secure the debt or to bring a fraudulent conveyance action to force reconveyance and allow the proper attachment of the Avalon Farms properties.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment, claiming that there is no material issue of fact to be tried. The defendant argues that it must prevail as a matter of law, since the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that any assets of DiNardo ever existed to satisfy the 1983 judgment.
In order to prevail, it is necessary for plaintiffs to establish the collectibility of the judgment, Palmieri v. Winnick,
The plaintiffs fail as a matter of law to present any evidence supporting this essential element of their claim. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
/s/ Patty Jenkins Pittman, J. PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN CT Page 7772