Grici v. Mance

Donna M. GRICI v. Eric MANCE

No. TTDCV146008673S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville

July 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Bright, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of the end of the personal relationship between the plaintiff, Donna M. Grici, and the defendant Eric Mance. The plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a non-marital romantic relationship between 1997 and approximately January 27, 2014, during which they lived together from February 1999, until the defendant ended the relationship. At the time that the relationship ended, the defendant had a 48 percent membership interest in Broad Brook Brewing, LLC (Broad Brook), a small, but growing, brewery located in East Windsor. On or about October 24, 2014, the plaintiff brought this action in three counts. In count one, she alleged that the parties had an agreement to share equally the defendant’s membership interest in Broad Brook. She further alleged that the defendant breached that agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff her share of the draw, income, and/or profits that the defendant received from Broad Brook and failed to share his membership interest in Broad Brook with her. In count two, she alleged a claim of unjust enrichment based on what she alleged were her substantial contributions to the development of Broad Brook. In count three, she alleged a claim of quantum meruit seeking to be compensated for the value of the work she provided to the defendant in the development of Broad Brook.

The defendant filed an answer denying the essential allegations of the complaint; in particular, he denied that the parties agreed that they jointly owned the defendant’s membership interest in Broad Brook and that the plaintiff was entitled to any compensation for any help she may have provided to the defendant regarding Broad Brook. The defendant also raised special defenses of the statute of frauds, laches, unclean hands, equitable estoppel, lack of consideration, accord and satisfaction, and offset. The defendant later amended his answer to add a counterclaim for invasion of privacy in which he alleged that, between the end of January 2014 and August 2015, the plaintiff accessed, without authorization, his e-mail accounts and those of his parents. He alleged that those accounts contained both his personal information and proprietary and confidential information concerning Broad Brook. In her answer to the counterclaim, the plaintiff neither admitted nor denied the essential allegations of the counterclaim, but left the defendant to his proof.

In July 2016, after a yearlong discovery battle over the defendant’s right to obtain financial information regarding Broad Brook, the plaintiff filed a motion to bifurcate the trial of the matter to resolve first the extent of the plaintiff’s interest in Broad Brook. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and in November 2016, a jury trial was held to determine whether the parties had entered into a contract which entitled the plaintiff to 50 percent of the defendant’s membership interest in Broad Brook. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant, in which it concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties had entered into a contract under which the plaintiff would receive 50 percent of the defendant’s membership interest in Broad Brook. The jury’s verdict, thus, resolved count one of the plaintiff’s complaint in favor of the defendant.

Following the jury’s verdict on count one, the parties engaged in additional discovery on counts two and three of the plaintiff’s complaint in anticipation of a trial to the court on those counts and the defendant’s counterclaim. Prior to trial, the plaintiff amended her complaint and expounded on her unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims by alleging that her contributions to the development of Broad Brook were part of the parties’ joint retirement plan and that the defendant’s termination of their relationship entitled her to repayment for the monetary and nonmonetary contributions she made in support of the defendant between 2011 and 2014, when Broad Brook was being developed.

The plaintiff’s remaining claims and the defendant’s counterclaim were tried to the court over three days. The parties agreed that evidence admitted during the jury trial as to count one of the plaintiff’s complaint could be considered by the court when resolving the remaining claims, subject to the preservation of objections made by the parties during the jury trial. Following the court trial, the parties, after receiving transcripts from both trials, submitted post-trial briefs and reply briefs.

II. FACTS

Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact. The parties began dating in or about 1997. On or about February 28, 1999, the parties jointly purchased a home located at 12 Slater Road in Stafford for $130, 000. The parties lived there together as a couple until the defendant ended the relationship and moved out on or about January 27, 2014. At the time they purchased the Slater Road property, the plaintiff was earning approximately $42, 000 per year and the defendant was earning approximately $26, 000 per year. Over the course of their relationship, the disparity in their incomes increased as the plaintiff earned an MBA from the University of Massachusetts in 2001, and moved to higher paying executive positions in the insurance industry. In 2009, the plaintiff was employed by Travelers Insurance Company at a starting salary of $120, 000. By 2016, her base salary at Travelers had risen to $176, 000. She also was entitled to receive bonuses. By contrast, the defendant’s annual income during the parties’ relationship never exceeded $50, 000. The defendant’s income came primarily from working in his parents’ printing business and a small information technology (IT) consulting business the defendant started.

When the parties began living together, the plaintiff paid approximately 60 percent of their living expenses. Over time, as her income increased, she paid a steadily increasing share of the expenses. The plaintiff viewed herself as the "primary bread winner." The parties never had any agreement as to how they would share living expenses other than that each would contribute what they could to the parties’ joint bank accounts from which the expenses were paid. During the course of the relationship, the plaintiff never complained about the defendant’s contributions to the household expenses and never told the defendant that she expected him to pay more. The plaintiff never told the defendant that she expected him some day to reimburse her for the amount she contributed to those expenses that was greater than what the defendant contributed.

During the time that they owned the Slater Road property, the parties made substantial improvements to the property in 2004 and in 2006. Most of the costs of the renovations were paid for by the parties’ refinancing the mortgage on the property. The renovations were done largely by the defendant, although the plaintiff did provide some assistance. The parties also purchased interests in two additional parcels of real estate during their relationship. In 2007, they formed Porter Management Group, LLC (Porter Management) to purchase the development rights to an industrial piece of property on Benton Drive in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. The development rights were purchased as an investment with the parties considering the possibility that the defendant’s parents’ printing business could move there. The rights were purchased for $95, 000, all of which was provided by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the parties had equal membership shares in Porter Management. Finally, in October 2013, the parties jointly purchased a lake house in Holland, Massachusetts. The price of the house, including transactional costs, was approximately $244, 000. The plaintiff provided the entire down payment of approximately $104, 000, and paid all expenses associated with the property, including the mortgage and taxes.

The parties, during their relationship, also jointly purchased various personal property, the most significant of which was a Lotus sports car, which they bought for approximately $38, 000. The plaintiff provided the initial $5000 down payment needed for the purchase of the car, and the parties equally shared the monthly payments thereafter until the plaintiff, at some point, used some of her bonuses from work and a gift from her father to pay off the loan.

Starting in approximately 2007, the defendant began brewing beer in a garage with two friends, Tom Rossing and Joe Dealba. After providing their beer to family and friends for approximately four years, in or about 2010 or 2011, the three friends started submitting samples of their beer to various beer competitions around the country. Their products were well-received and they won a number of awards. At the same time, they started attending beer festivals to provide tasting of their beers. In addition to the defendant, Rossing and Dealba attending these festivals, friends and family members, including the plaintiff, would attend to help serve tastings. Ultimately, the defendant, Rossing and Dealba decided to start a brewery and attempt to turn their beer brewing hobby into a business. When the defendant told the plaintiff of this plan she initially was not supportive. She expressed reservations about Rossing and Dealba as partners because they had limited business experience. She also was concerned that spending time on the brewery would prevent the defendant from expanding his IT consulting business...