DE FACTO PARTNERSHIP AFFIRMED
Implied In Fact Contract Can Only Exist However Where There Is No Express One
Post number 5311
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gPHyfRec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRjMfgBj and at https://lnkd.in/gicdXhap, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Ronald Daigneault v. Danielle Kolashuk et al., No. AC 47259, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (March 24, 2026) Daigneault, owned and operated an auto repair business for approximately twenty-eight years. During this period, he and his daughter, the defendant D (Danielle Kolashuk), jointly operated the business. D’s husband owned Auto Magic, LLC (“A Co.”), which periodically stored towed vehicles on the business property. Disputes arose regarding the nature of the business relationship between the plaintiff and D, the use of business accounts, and payment for vehicle storage.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ronald The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for, among other things, statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty. Danielle, according to the trial court, “used the Superior Auto accounts as her own piggy bank . . . .”
The trial court, however, found that she, “as a joint holder of those accounts and her father’s de facto partner, and knowing that her father did so . . . reasonably believed that she, too, had the right to do so . . . .”
LEGAL ISSUES
The case involved claims of statutory theft under Connecticut law and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court was required to determine whether a de facto partnership existed between the plaintiff and D, and to resolve issues relating to joint account ownership and alleged oral agreements for vehicle storage.
1. Whether the trial court properly found the existence of a de facto partnership between the plaintiff and D.
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that joint account holders are joint owners of the account.
3. Whether there was an enforceable oral agreement requiring A Co. to pay for storage of vehicles on the business property.
Whether the trial court’s findings justified judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims for statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the trial court’s finding of a de facto partnership, arguing that the evidence did not support such a conclusion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found ample support for the trial court’s determination that a partnership existed, noting the lengthy joint operation of the business and the conduct of the parties. The court emphasized that the finding was not clearly erroneous.
With respect to implied in fact contracts, the courts have recognized that whether a contract is styled express or implied involves no difference in legal effect but lies merely in the mode of manifesting assent. A true implied in fact contract can only exist however where there is no express one. It is one which is inferred from the conduct of the parties though not expressed in words.
The judgment was affirmed. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claims, as well as the judgment for the named defendant on the counterclaim. The court’s analysis rested on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the existence of a de facto partnership and the procedural inadequacy of the plaintiff’s briefing on other issues.
ZALMA OPINION
When I was young my father tried to teach me that it was important to support the family. He tried, and failed with regard to one family member who insulted him, but otherwise always supported family. The litigation and relationships in this case teaches what happens when families don’t support each other only to have a court find an implied partnership that resolved the dispute without either party being happy.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
