Evexia Holdings, Inc. v. Geurts

Syllabus

The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's judgment denying their applica- tion to vacate an arbitration award and granting the defendant's motion to confirm the award, which had been issued in connection with a dispute regarding the parties' consulting agreement. The plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly rejected their argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by imposing a constructive trust on certain shares of stock owned by the plaintiff B. Held: The trial court properly denied the plaintiffs' application to vacate and granted the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law and the arbitrator's decision to impose a constructive trust was consistent with the parties' broad, unrestricted submission to arbitration, as the arbitrator reasonably could have concluded that, in order to ensure that the defendant received the benefits to which he was entitled under the consulting agreement, a constructive trust on B's stock was justified, the arbitrator's failure to award relief for unjust enrichment did not preclude him from fashioning an equitable remedy neces- sary to vindicate his findings that the plaintiffs had engaged in bad faith conduct, breached their fiduciary duties, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.) in their dealings with the defendant, and the plaintiffs failed to establish that the arbitrator was aware of and chose to ignore some obvious and readily perceived legal principle that would have precluded the imposition of a constructive trust or otherwise limited his broad authority to fashion legal and equitable remedies. Argued October 9—officially released December 23, 2025