Vigneau v. Storch Engineers, No. Cv89-0700122s (Dec. 4, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13407, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 623 (1995)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A partner who breaches fiduciary duties through self-dealing does not forfeit their right to recover their vested partnership interest unless the partnership agreement expressly conditions such payment on faithful performance; however, the disloyal partner is liable for damages, disgorgement of secret profits, and statutory penalties if the conduct constitutes an unfair trade practice.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff was hired as an architect by Storch Engineers and eventually became a partner, signing an agreement that required him to be 'just and faithful' and provide 'full information' to other partners.
  • Plaintiff accumulated a vested partnership interest valued at approximately $167,794 through capital contributions and promissory notes.
  • While a partner, Plaintiff secretly invested in two outside real estate development projects, HCA and Grandford.
  • Plaintiff acted as Storch's representative in negotiating fees and services with HCA and Grandford while simultaneously holding a hidden ownership interest in those client entities.
  • Plaintiff realized a secret profit of $28,059 from the HCA project but lost money on the Grandford project.
  • Plaintiff resigned from Storch Engineers citing poor health and dissatisfaction, unrelated to the secret dealings.
  • Storch Engineers discovered the plaintiff's secret involvement in the projects after his resignation.
  • Storch Engineers refused to pay the plaintiff the value of his partnership interest, citing his breach of fiduciary duty.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Connecticut against Storch Engineers to recover the value of his partnership interest.
  • Defendant Storch Engineers filed an answer and counterclaims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, violation of CUTPA, and negligence.
  • Plaintiff filed a reply to the counterclaims asserting a special defense based on the statute of limitations.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a partner's breach of fiduciary duty via secret self-dealing excuse the partnership from its contractual obligation to purchase the partner's vested interest upon retirement?


Opinions:

Memorandum of Decision - Judge Referee Robert Satter

No, the partnership cannot withhold the vested interest, though the plaintiff is liable for damages. The court reasoned that the contract provision requiring faithful performance was an independent covenant from the buyout provision, not a condition precedent. Citing principles that the law abhors forfeiture and referencing Meehan v. Shaughnessy, the court established that capital contributions and vested interests are not liquidated damages to be seized upon breach. However, regarding the counterclaims, the court ruled the plaintiff must disgorge the secret profits with interest. Furthermore, because the plaintiff's conduct violated professional architectural ethics and involved public deception, it implicated 'trade or commerce' outside the firm's internal affairs, constituting a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) warranting punitive damages.



Analysis:

This decision provides a critical distinction between a partner's property rights and their fiduciary obligations. By adopting the 'independent covenant' theory, the court prevents the total forfeiture of a partner's accumulated wealth (capital account) merely due to misconduct, unless the contract explicitly states otherwise. However, it balances this protection by aggressively applying consumer protection statutes (CUTPA) to what might otherwise appear to be an internal dispute. The ruling expands the scope of potential liability for professionals, showing that violating ethical codes that protect the public (like architectural zoning representations) can trigger statutory punitive damages even within a partnership breakup.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Vigneau v. Storch Engineers, No. Cv89-0700122s (Dec. 4, 1995) (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"