Estate of Richard L. Goldblatt v. Erik Kuselias (2012)

MEMORANDUM

By this memorandum the court is opening the evidence because the evidence offered is insufficient to assist the court in reaching an appropriate decision.   See Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ankerman, 74 Conn.App. 464.   The court will require additional evidence as described below.

This action arises out of a three-and-one-half-year period of time, May 15, 2000 through December 8 2003, when Richard Goldblatt (plaintiff) and Erik Kuselias (defendant) practiced law together as partners.   Attorney Goldblatt died on September 2, 2005 and his widow, Charlotte Goldblatt, has been substituted as Executrix of the Estate of Richard Goldblatt.   The original complaint was filed on May 31, 2005.   In response to a request to revise the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 27, 2009.   This case was tried on August 31 and September 1, 2010.   After the trial was completed the plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended complaint to conform the complaint to the evidence offered at trial.   The complaint was filed on November 17, 2010.

On May 15, 2000 Goldblatt and Kuselias agreed to practice law as partners.   There was no written partnership agreement.   They orally agreed that they would share profits, losses and capital contributions on the bases of 60% for the plaintiff and 40% for the defendant.   This agreement continued until September 8, 2003 when the defendant started working part time outside of the office, and the arrangement was changed to 80% and 20%.   On December 8, 2003 they terminated the partnership.

In his post-trial brief the plaintiff has withdrawn a claim of “Rent and Real Estate Taxes.”   No such claim is alleged in the final amended complaint filed on November 17, 2010.   The court wishes to hear evidence as to whether the operating expenses of the partnership included expenses for rent and real estate taxes, and whether the withdrawal of rent and real estate taxes amounts to a reduction in the total sum of $307,106.66 that the plaintiff claims he loaned to the partnership.

The defendant claims in his counterclaim that when they terminated the partnership on December 8, 2003 they agreed on how to distribute fees thereafter earned on all files then in existence at the partnership.   The plaintiff claims that the defendant has failed to prove the terms of such an agreement.   The defendant claims that the plaintiff received approximately $600,000.00 in fees and that he is entitled to his share of these proceeds.   The defendant also received fees on files he worked on after the partnership terminated.

The court finds that the parties did have an agreement covering the distribution of post-dissolution fees.   The agreement is contained in Exhibit C, which is a memorandum prepared by the defendant following the meeting when the parties decided to dissolve the partnership.   The agreement provided for the distribution of hourly rate fees and contingency fees expected to be earned after the dissolution on December 8, 2003 on files then in the office.   The files were all described as files which had not settled, and were files generated during the partnership, files generated by the defendant before the creation of the partnership, and files generated by the plaintiff before the creation of the partnership.

The court finds that the parties agreed on a formula to distribute all fees to be earned after December 8, 2003 on files existing in the office as of December 8, 2003 as is set forth in Exhibit C, with the exception that the defendant's share of those fees earned between September 8 and December 8, 2003 would be reduced from 40% to 20% because the defendant was only working part time at the firm.

The court has determined that the parties did agree on how to determine the amount of fees that each was to receive on all files pending in the firm at the time of the dissolution.   However, the evidence offered during the trial is insufficient to enable the court to determine the breakdown of the fees to the parties pursuant to the agreement.

The defendant has claimed in the second count of his counterclaim that the plaintiff is required to file a partnership accounting.   Since the dissolution of the partnership on December 8, 2003 both parties have received fees earned on partnership files and it is appropriate that each should file an accounting of fees obtained on those files.

Each party is ordered to prepare and file an accounting of all fees earned on files retained by each party after the termination of the partnership in accordance with Exhibit C, as amended for the period from September 8, 2003 to December 8, 2003.   The accountings shall reflect whether some portion of the fees earned is payable to anyone besides the parties.   The accountings shall reflect all monies from fees received by each party, and how those fees should be distributed to the parties.   The accountings shall be filed by the parties with the court and with each other on or before July 2, 2012.   Objections to the accounting filed by the adverse party shall be filed on or before August 1, 2012.   The court will then schedule a further evidentiary hearing on the distribution of fees earned subsequent to the dissolution of the partnership, and on the subject of the withdrawal of the claim for rent and real estate taxes.

William L. Hadden, Jr.

Judge Trial Referee

Hadden, William L., J.T.R.