Featherston v. Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc.

Citations

• 201 Conn. App. 774

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, S Co. and P Co., for violations of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA) (§ 52-552a et seq.) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.). In 2012, the trial court rendered judg- ment for the plaintiff against S Co. in a separate action. Soon after the 2012 judgment, S Co. ceased doing business, and the former president of S Co. filed a certificate of incorporation forming P Co. The plaintiff alleged that S Co. had fraudulently transferred all of its assets to P Co. in order to prevent him from collecting on the 2012 judgment. The plaintiff requested punitive damages under CUTPA in his second revised complaint and in his posttrial brief; the trial court did not address punitive damages in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff on all counts. The court also awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees on his CUTPA count. The defendants appealed to this court. After the appeal had been filed, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial and a motion for punitive damages. The court granted the motion to amend but denied the motion for punitive damages. The defendants then amended their appeal. Held: 1. The defendants' original appeal was not taken from a final judgment, and this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain it, but, nonetheless, the defendants' amended appeal was jurisdictionally proper; a final judgment was not rendered in this matter until the trial court had denied the plaintiff's motion for punitive damages, following the original appeal, and the defendants' amended appeal encompassed the claims raised by the defendants in their original appeal, in addition to the granting of the plaintiff's postjudgment motion to amend, and this court could review all of the defendants' claims in the context of their amended appeal. 2. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the