Charles H. Hill et al. v. II (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action by plaintiffs, Charles H. Hill and Kimberly Hill, against defendant, Charles H. Hill, II. Charles H. Hill is the father of defendant Charles H. Hill, II and plaintiff Kimberly Hill is the sister of the defendant.

The first count of the complaint alleges a constructive trust in favor of plaintiff Charles H. Hill for a life interest in real property in the name of defendant Charles H. Hill, II. The second count sets forth a claim for money damages by plaintiff Charles H. Hill against defendant Charles H. Hill, II on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The third count alleges a constructive trust in favor of plaintiff Kimberly Hill for a life interest in real property in the name of Charles H. Hill, II. The fourth count sets forth a claim for money damages by plaintiff Kimberly Hill against defendant Charles H. Hill, II on the basis of unjust enrichment.

Default was entered against defendant Charles H. Hill, II on December 21, 2010.   The matter came before the court on the hearing in damages list of March 1, 2011.

As a consequence of the default against defendant Charles H. Hill, II, the court is bound by the material factual allegations set forth in the complaint.   Where those allegations provide a basis for liability, the court is required by law to render judgment against such defendant and award damages accordingly.

The factual allegations of the complaint which, after default, the court must accept as proven, provide a basis for liability against the defendant on all counts.

Plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of debt in proper form.   In the affidavit, plaintiffs seek life estates in the real property now in the name of the defendant under the first and third counts of the complaint.   In the alternative, plaintiffs seek money damages under the second and fourth counts.

It would be in the parties' best interests to award money damages rather than impose constructive trusts under the first and third counts.   The impositions of constructive trusts for life estates would most likely result in further litigation under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-500.

Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Charles H. Hill against defendant Charles H. Hill, II on the second count in the amount of $48,799.14.

Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Kimberly Hill on the fourth count against defendant Charles H. Hill, II in the amount of $13,747.61.

Joseph J. Purtill

Judge Trial Referee

Purtill, Joseph J., J.T.R.