Daigneault v. Kolashuk

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

RONALD DAIGNEAULT v. DANIELLE
KOLASHUK ET AL.
(AC 47259)
Suarez, Clark and Westbrook, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the defendants on
his claims for, inter alia, statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiff owned and operated an auto repair business, and, for approximately
twenty-eight years, the plaintiff and his daughter, the defendant D, jointly
operated the business. D’s husband owned the defendant A Co., which peri-
odically stored towed vehicles on the property of the business. The plaintiff
claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that there was a de facto
partnership between the plaintiff and D. Held:

The trial court’s finding that there was a de facto partnership between the
plaintiff and D was not clearly erroneous, as there was ample support in the
record for such a finding.

This court declined to review various of the plaintiff’s other claims, includ-
ing claims that the trial court improperly found that joint account holders
are joint owners of the account and that A Co. did not have an oral agree-
ment to pay the business for the storage of vehicles, as those claims were
inadequately briefed.

Argued April 23, 2025—officially released March 24, 2026

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, statutory
theft, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court
in the judicial district of New London, where the court,
Knox, J., granted the motion to dismiss filed by the
defendant Auto Magic, LLC; thereafter, Matthew Kola-
shuk et al. were cited in as defendants; subsequently,
the named defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter,
the case was tried to the court, Jacobs, J.; subsequently,
the court, Jacobs, J., granted the defendant Michael
Kolashuk’s motion for a directed verdict and rendered
judgment thereon; judgment for the named defendant
et al. on the complaint and for the named defendant on
the counterclaim, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
Frank J. Liberty, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Kyle J. Zrenda, with whom was Isabel V. Del Vecchio,
for the appellee (named defendant).
Michael J. Kopsick, for the appellee (defendant Abso-
lute Auto Body, Inc.).

Opinion

SUAREZ, J. The plaintiff, Ronald Daigneault, indi-
vidually and doing business as Superior Auto Center
(Superior Auto), appeals following the judgment of the
trial court rendered in favor of the defendants Danielle
Kolashuk, individually and as trustee of the Daigneault
Family Irrevocable Trust (trust), Michael Kolashuk,
individually and as successor trustee of the trust, and
Absolute Auto Body, Inc. (Absolute Auto), on all counts
of the plaintiff’s revised third amended complaint.1 On
appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly
found there was a de facto partnership between the plain-
tiff and Danielle, (2) the court improperly found that
joint account holders are joint owners of the account,
(3) the court’s decision was clearly erroneous, (4) the
court improperly found that Absolute Auto did not have
an oral agreement to pay Superior Auto for the storage
of vehicles, and (5) the court improperly found that,
because Danielle was a de facto partner of the plaintiff,
her actions did not constitute statutory theft or breach
of fiduciary duty.2 We disagree with the plaintiff’s first
1
Also named as defendants in this action were Matthew Kolashuk
and Michael Kolashuk, as legal guardian of John Doe 1 and John Doe
2. The defendants Matthew Kolashuk, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 are
beneficiaries of the trust. These defendants are not participating in
this appeal. For the sake of clarity, we refer to Danielle Kolashuk as
Danielle and to Michael Kolashuk as Michael.
2
The plaintiff’s brief is not a model of clarity. In his principal appellate
brief, the plaintiff characterizes his claims of error as follows: “Both
legally and factually, the trial court erred in finding a de facto part-
nership between the [plaintiff] and [Danielle],” “[t]he trial court erred
in finding joint account holders are joint owners,” “[t]he trial court’s
decision is clearly erroneous,” “[d]id the trial court err that [Absolute
Auto] did not have an oral agreement with Superior Auto,” and “[t]he
trial court erred as to not finding conversion, civil theft, and breach
of fiduciary duty.” The plaintiff did not include a statement of issues
pursuant to Practice Book § 67-4 (b). We have reframed the plaintiff’s
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

claim and conclude that the remaining claims are inad-
equately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
The following procedural history and facts, as found
by the trial court or otherwise undisputed in the record,
are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plain-
tiff owned and operated Superior Auto, a business that
maintained and repaired automobiles. Superior Auto is
located at 92 Stonington Road in Norwich (Stonington
property). Danielle is the plaintiff’s daughter and the
trustee of the trust. Danielle worked with the plaintiff
at Superior Auto for nearly three decades. From the
late 1980s until 2016, the plaintiff and Danielle jointly
operated Superior Auto. In 2007, and again in 2011,
the plaintiff executed power of attorney agreements in
which he granted Danielle the unilateral authority to
make gifts on his behalf. The 2011 power of attorney,
which was in effect at the time of the underlying events,
provided in relevant part: “I, Ronald Daigneault . . .
do hereby appoint my daughter, Danielle M. Kolashuk
. . . [m]y [attorney-in-fact] TO ACT . . . [i]n my name,
place and stead . . . to make gifts of any assets owned
by me or any interest in property owned by me to . . .
my issue, including my attorney-in-fact . . . . All such
gifts may be made at such times and in such amounts as
my attorney-in-fact may determine in his/her sole and
absolute discretion.” On April 18, 2017, the plaintiff
revoked both power of attorney agreements. Michael
is Danielle’s husband and the owner of Absolute Auto.
Michael is also the successor trustee of the trust. In
2015, Danielle discovered that the plaintiff was hav-
ing an extramarital affair and confronted the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, Danielle then attempted to
blackmail him and demanded that he leave the business,
or she would reveal his extramarital affair to his wife.
In July, 2018, the plaintiff commenced the present
action against the defendants. The revised third amended
claims, in some instances condensing closely related claims, to more
accurately reflect the arguments in his briefs. See, e.g., Doe v. Quin-
nipiac University, 218 Conn. App. 170, 173 n.4, 291 A.3d 153 (2023).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

complaint (operative complaint) was filed on February 15,
2022. Counts one through five of the operative complaint
were brought against Danielle in her individual capacity
or as trustee of the trust and sounded in statutory theft,
conversion, forgery, and breach of fiduciary duty. Count
six sought termination of the trust.3 Count seven was
brought against Absolute Auto, alleging failure to pay
storage fees. Counts eight and nine were brought against
Michael and sounded in statutory theft and conversion.
Count ten was brought against Danielle and asserted a
claim of fraudulent concealment pursuant to General
Statutes § 52-595.4 With respect to the counts of statu-
tory theft and conversion brought against Danielle, the
plaintiff alleged that Danielle “used [her power of attor-
ney] to withdraw $30,440.06 in October and November,
2015, for her own personal use” and stole “approximately
$614,583.43 from [Superior Auto].” With respect to the
forgery count, the plaintiff alleged that Danielle forged
his name on his retirement check and on additional checks
from Superior Auto. With respect to the count of breach
of fiduciary duty brought against Danielle as attorney-in-
fact, the plaintiff alleged that Danielle breached a duty
owed to him under the power of attorney. With respect
to the count of breach of fiduciary duty brought against
Danielle in her capacity as trustee, the plaintiff alleged
that Danielle failed to pay property taxes on a certain
property located in Voluntown (Voluntown property),
which was owned by the trust.
On May 10, 2023, Danielle filed an answer generally
denying the allegations of the operative complaint. By
way of special defense, she alleged that, “[t]o the extent
the plaintiff makes claims and seeks damages for any
allegedly tortious action of any party accruing more than
three years prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, all such
3
It appears from the plaintiff’s principal appellate brief before this
court that he is not challenging the court’s judgment as to count six.
4
General Statutes § 52-595 provides: “If any person, liable to an action
by another, fraudulently conceals from him the existence of the cause
of such action, such cause of action shall be deemed to accrue against
such person so liable therefor at the time when the person entitled to
sue thereon first discovers its existence.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

claims and damages are barred by applicable statute of
limitations,” “[t]he plaintiff retained a life use on the
[Voluntown property] and, therefore, payment of taxes
on the property was his responsibility, and not that of
[any] trustee of the [trust],” “[a]t all material times, the
plaintiff was a signatory to all bank accounts in question
and/or account holder to any other financial accounts in
question and had access to all business books, comput-
ers, records and tax returns . . . [and] [t]he plaintiff,
through his own incompetence, neglect or disinterest,
[h]as caused or contributed to his own claim for damages
and loss,” “[t]he plaintiff acted with unclean hands and
is therefore barred from recovery,” and “[s]ome or all
of the claims of the [plaintiff] are barred as he implic-
itly or expressly consented to the actions of [Danielle].”
Danielle also filed a counterclaim seeking a partition of
the Stonington property.
Michael filed an answer to the plaintiff’s original
complaint in which he generally denied the plaintiff’s
allegations. By way of special defense, he asserted that
the claims against him were barred by the statute of
limitations, that the plaintiff was responsible for pay-
ment of property taxes at the Voluntown property, that
the plaintiff was a signatory to all bank accounts from
which Danielle allegedly stole and to any other financial
accounts in question, that the plaintiff’s alleged losses
were due to “his own incompetence, neglect or disinter-
est,” and that the plaintiff “fail[ed] to state a cause of
action” because no “legal duty [to protect the plaintiff
from the alleged actions of Danielle] exists or can be
imposed upon [Michael].”
Absolute Auto also filed an answer to the plaintiff’s
original complaint generally denying the allegations
against it and, by way of special defense, alleged that it
had permission and consent of a duly authorized owner of
the property to store towed vehicles at Superior Auto and
that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The court, Jacobs, J., held a trial over the course of
eight days between June and August, 2023. The court
heard testimony from, inter alia, the plaintiff; the
plaintiff’s forensic expert, Nancy Riella; Danielle; and
Michael. The court also admitted several exhibits into
evidence. Posttrial briefs were filed thereafter. At the
close of the plaintiff’s case, Michael made a motion for a
directed verdict, which the court granted.5 On December
21, 2023, the court issued a memorandum of decision,
in which it rendered judgment against the plaintiff on
all counts of the plaintiff’s operative complaint and in
favor of Danielle on her counterclaim.6
In its memorandum of decision, the court found that it
“did not find the testimony of [the plaintiff] to be cred-
ible. His assertion that [Danielle], with whom he had
worked for nearly three decades, was not his de facto
business partner belies the fact that he had conveyed
to her a 28 percent stake in the [Stonington property]
with the intention of making still further conveyances
to her of his interest in the land; that he held her out
to the world as his partner; that he made her a joint
holder of his business accounts; that he had once named
her in corporate filings as a joint holder of his business
accounts; that he had once named her in corporate filings
as the vice president of the corporation; and that he had
entrusted to her the complete and unfettered operation
of the business, thereby enabling him to do nothing more
each day than turn a wrench. He denies knowing of and
acquiescing to [Danielle’s] use of Superior Auto funds
for personal needs and wants but expresses regret for
having allowed her to do that. He accuses her of looting
his business when he was, himself, using Superior Auto
as his own personal piggy bank. The evidence indicates
5
The plaintiff does not challenge on appeal the court’s judgment as
to Michael.
6
Although the court found in favor of Danielle on her counterclaim,
the court did not order a sale of the Stonington property, as she had
requested. Rather, the court ordered a hearing to be held to determine
the fair market value of the Stonington property to “enable the equi-
table distribution of the property with payment to [Danielle] of just
compensation for her interest in that property.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

that they were every bit a team and that [the plaintiff]
regarded them as a team until Danielle outed her father’s
infidelity, prompting him to then deny that they had
ever been a team. He would have the court believe that
the same daughter who had encouraged him to have an
extramarital affair reacted angrily—even threatening
to blackmail him—upon discovering that he was having
an extramarital affair.” (Emphasis omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)
The court also found that “[Danielle’s] testimony is
not without its infirmities. The court has little doubt
that Danielle liked to gamble and that she probably took
Superior Auto income to the casino, though the record
does not bear out a record of large gambling losses or
other signs of compulsivity. She claims, persuasively,
that she was a partner in Superior Auto but filed a claim
for unemployment compensation as a W-2 wage earner
after she had separated from the business, raising the
specter of unemployment compensation fraud and call-
ing into question her own credibility. The court doubts
the veracity of her inability to recall withdrawing funds
from the Superior Auto account and depositing them
into her personal account at Mohegan Sun. Likewise,
the court finds her testimony that certain checks that
were written to her on the Superior Auto account were
intended as either cash for [the plaintiff] or vendor labor
to be lacking in credibility. Still, on balance, the court
finds her testimony to have been more credible than
[the plaintiff’s testimony].” (Footnote omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)
The court further found that the plaintiff “gave Dan-
ielle carte blanche to run the business of Superior Auto.
And run it she did, with her hands both on the books and
the cars themselves, towing them, changing oil, repairing
brakes, doing tune-ups. Like her father, she used funds
from the Superior Auto account to pay for personal
expenses, including property taxes on the various proper-
ties that she and her husband owned. Like her father, she
gifted Superior Auto funds to herself. She did all of this
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

with her father’s imprimatur, however tacit, as a joint
holder of the Superior Auto account and an Ameritrade
account and having received unrestricted gifting pow-
ers from him by way of a power of attorney, which he
executed, freely and voluntarily, in the presence of his
attorney. . . . [T]he evidence shows that, as his de facto
partner, [Danielle] had as much right to the Superior
Auto funds as [the plaintiff] did. Thus, the court finds
that the plaintiff has not proven that, more likely than
not, Danielle converted funds rightfully belonging to the
plaintiff . . . .” (Emphasis omitted; footnotes omitted.)
According to the court, Danielle “used the Superior
Auto accounts as her own piggy bank . . . .” The court,
however, found that she, “as a joint holder of those
accounts and her father’s de facto partner, and know-
ing that her father did so . . . reasonably believed that
she, too, had the right to do so . . . .” The court further
found that there were no “explicit limitations placed
on her right to use the funds in those accounts . . . .”
Finally, the court found that, “having been granted
the unrestricted power to gift [the plaintiff’s] assets
to herself [Danielle] reasonably believed that she could
use funds in his investment and retirement accounts
with impunity . . . .” The court stated that “[t]he powers
bestowed on an attorney-in-fact by a power of attorney
are typically checked by the attorney-in-fact’s fiduciary
responsibility to the giver of those powers. Not so here,
where [the plaintiff] gave [Danielle] the unfettered power
to make gifts to herself, her spouse and her issue and
where [General Statutes § 1-350m (a) (3)]7 authorizes an
attorney-in-fact to act within the scope of the authority
granted. Why he gave her that power is unknown. But
having executed that power of attorney freely and volun-
tarily in the presence of his friend and attorney, Michael
7
General Statutes § 1-350m (a) provides: “Notwithstanding provisions
in the power of attorney, an agent that has accepted appointment shall:
(1) Act in accordance with the principal’s reasonable expectations, and,
if such expectations are unknown, make reasonable efforts to ascertain
the principal’s expectations and act, otherwise, in the principal’s best
interest; (2) Act in good faith; and (3) Act only within the scope of
authority granted in the power of attorney.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Lahan, and two witnesses, [the plaintiff’s] claims that he
did not intend to give [Danielle] that unfettered power
and that he did not understand the implications of the
gifting power ring hollow.” (Footnote added.) The court
concluded that “the gifts were not grifts, and profligacy
is not a tort.”8
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of forgery, the court
found that “the only proof of forgery is the plaintiff’s
self-serving testimony, and the court has found his tes-
timony to be lacking credibility.” Additionally, the court
found that the plaintiff “admitted that he had no idea
who had forged his signature.” The court, therefore,
concluded that “the plaintiff’s forgery claim fails.”
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of breach of fiduciary
duty to Superior Auto, the court found that the plaintiff
had failed to meet his burden of proof. Specifically, the
court found that “the use of Superior Auto funds for the
personal benefit of its owners was Superior Auto’s modus
operandi and, if this is the way they did business, the
court cannot find that [Danielle], in doing business in this
usual and customary—if unconventional—way, breached
her fiduciary duty to Superior Auto.” (Emphasis omit-
ted.) The court further found that, “[t]o the extent that
the plaintiff claims that [Danielle] breached her fiduciary
duty to him as his attorney-in-fact, that claim fails due to
the vastness of the gifting power [that] he had freely and
voluntarily given to his daughter. Moreover, the court
rejects as lacking credibility the claims that [Danielle]
used her power of attorney to take out a $100,000 home
equity loan against the plaintiff’s property in Lisbon,
Connecticut, and a loan against a life insurance policy
insuring the life of the plaintiff.”
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim against Absolute
Auto for failure to pay towing and storage charges, the
court found that “the towing and storage arrangement
as between [Absolute Auto] and Superior Auto was one of
mutual convenience and benefit between family members
8
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim of statutory theft for the
same reasons.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

for which no payment was expected . . . .” The court
credited “the testimony of [Danielle] that, as a de facto
owner of Superior Auto and owner of 28 percent of the
land on which the vehicles were stored, she permitted . . .
Absolute Auto . . . to store towed vehicles there. The
court finds [the plaintiff’s] claim that [Absolute Auto]
had agreed to pay Superior [Auto] for storing vehicles at
Superior [Auto] to be nothing but an invention conjured
up by the [plaintiff] in his vindictive rampage.”
Finally, with respect to Danielle’s counterclaim for
partition of the Stonington property, the court concluded
that, “[a]s [Danielle] has only a 28 percent interest in
the [Stonington property] and as Superior Auto is situ-
ated on that property, the court finds that a sale would
not promote the interests of the owners and, therefore,
orders, pursuant to [General Statutes § 52-500 (a)],9 such
equitable distribution of the property, with payment of
just compensation to the owners of such minimal inter-
est, as will better promote the interests of the owners.”10
(Footnote added.) This appeal followed. Additional facts
will be set forth as necessary.
I
The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly
found that there was a de facto partnership between the
plaintiff and Danielle. We are not persuaded.
9
General Statutes § 52-500 (a) provides: “Any court of equitable
jurisdiction may, upon the complaint of any person interested, order
the sale of any property, real or personal, owned by two or more persons,
when, in the opinion of the court, a sale will better promote the interests
of the owners. If the court determines that one or more of the persons
owning such real or personal property have only a minimal interest in
such property and a sale would not promote the interests of the owners,
the court may order such equitable distribution of such property, with
payment of just compensation to the owners of such minimal interest,
as will better promote the interests of the owners.”
10
We note that the court did not expressly address count ten of the
operative complaint, alleging fraudulent concealment of a cause of
action. It is not disputed, however, that the court did not reach the defen-
dants’ statute of limitations defenses, and any allegation relating to the
doctrine of fraudulent concealment would have been relevant only as a
potential avenue to toll the applicable statute of limitations. See, e.g.,
Curto v. Hartmann, 235 Conn. App. 40, 49–50, 344 A.3d 1244 (2025).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The parties disagree over the proper standard of review
that should apply to this claim. The plaintiff asserts that
his claim involves “review of the trial court’s legal and
factual determination that there was a de facto [partner-
ship]” and, therefore, this court should apply plenary
review. Danielle counters that the court should “apply
a clearly erroneous standard to its review of the trial
court’s finding of a partnership.” We agree with Danielle
that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies
because the existence of a de facto partnership is a ques-
tion of fact for the trier. See Villanueva v. Villanueva,
206 Conn. App. 36, 40, 260 A.3d 568, cert. denied, 338
Conn. 913, 259 A.3d 653 (2021).
General Statutes § 34-301 (12) defines the term “[p]art-
nership” as “an association of two or more persons to
carry on as co-owners a business for profit formed under
section 34-314,11 predecessor law or comparable law of
another jurisdiction . . . .” (Footnote added.) Moreover,
§ 34-301 (13) defines the term “[p]artnership agreement”
as the “agreement, whether written, oral or implied,
among the partners concerning the partnership, includ-
ing amendments to the partnership agreement.”
This court recently had occasion to review the appro-
priateness of a trial court’s finding of an implied, or
“de facto,” partnership.12 In Villanueva v. Villanueva,
supra, 206 Conn. App. 36, a case similar to the present
one, the trial court found that the plaintiff started a
small landscaping business in 2005. Id., 38. In 2007, the
defendant, who was the plaintiff’s brother, started work-
ing for the plaintiff in the landscaping business “initially
as an employee, but as the business grew the brothers
became de facto equal partners, sharing the profits, and
the management of the business. No written partnership
11
General Statutes § 34-314 provides in relevant part: “Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, the association
of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit
forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a part-
nership. . . .”
12
“An implied partnership may be labeled a ‘de facto’ partnership.”
68 C.J.S. 273, Partnership § 23 (2020).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

agreement was ever entered into by the brothers.” (Inter-
nal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The trial court further
found that the brothers split their duties, “as over time,
one crew did landscaping and the other did masonry
and tree work. [The plaintiff] worked on increasing the
customer base and supervised a masonry/tree crew in
the field; [the defendant] took over as bookkeeper and
was responsible for paperwork, but also supervised the
landscaping crew.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id. The court further found that the business accounts
were “opened by [the defendant] and he was in charge of
deposits and withdrawals. Funds were withdrawn from
the accounts by both brothers as needed to pay their per-
sonal expenses rather than drawing a salary.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., 39.
“Sometime in 2014, [the plaintiff] found himself
locked out of the landscaping business as [the defen-
dant], without warning, took all the customers, crew,
tools, vehicles and equipment used in the landscaping
side of the business, together with all [of] the cash in
the accounts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
After a court trial, the court issued a memorandum of
decision in which it found that an implied partnership
existed between the parties and the defendant breached
the terms of the implied partnership agreement. See id.,
40. Specifically, the trial court found that “there [was]
strong evidence the parties were de facto partners.”
(Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id., 41. The defendant appealed to this court, claiming
that the trial court improperly found that an implied
partnership existed between the parties. Id., 37. This
court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id., 46. It
explained that “[i]t is well settled that the existence of an
implied in fact contract is a question of fact for the trier. .
. . Accordingly, our review is limited to a determination
of whether the decision of the trial court is clearly erro-
neous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there
is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. .
. . Because it is the trial court’s function to weigh the
evidence and determine credibility, we give great defer-
ence to its findings. . . . In reviewing factual findings,
[w]e do not examine the record to determine whether
the [court] could have reached a conclusion other than
the one reached. . . . Instead, we make every reasonable
presumption . . . in favor of the trial court’s ruling. . . .
“With respect to implied in fact contracts, we have
recognized that [w]hether [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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 40–41.
This court in Villanueva concluded that the trial court’s
finding that, “by his conduct, the plaintiff manifested an
intent to operate the business alongside the defendant
[was] amply supported by the record.” Id., 42. It therefore
held that the trial court’s finding of an implied partner-
ship was not clearly erroneous. Id.
In the present case, the court similarly found that
“[t]he evidence indicates that [the plaintiff and Danielle]
were every bit a team and that [the plaintiff] regarded
them as a team until Danielle outed her father’s infidel-
ity, prompting him to then deny that they had ever been a
team.” The court found that the plaintiff “had conveyed
to [Danielle] a 28 percent stake in the land on which Supe-
rior Auto was situated with the intention of making still
further conveyances to her of his interest in that land;
that he held her out to the world as his partner; that he
made her a joint holder of his business accounts; that he
had once named her in corporate filings as the vice presi-
dent of the corporation; and that he had entrusted to her
the complete and unfettered operation of the business,
thereby enabling him to do nothing more each day than
‘turn a wrench.’ ” The court further found that Danielle
“claims, persuasively, that she was a partner in Superior
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Auto” and that the plaintiff “gave Danielle carte blanche
to run the business of Superior Auto. And run it she did,
with her hands both on the books and the cars themselves
. . . . Like her father, she used funds from the Superior
Auto account to pay for personal expenses . . . . Like her
father, she gifted Superior Auto funds to herself. She
did all of this with her father’s imprimatur . . . .”
The record supports the court’s finding that the plain-
tiff and Danielle were de facto partners in Superior Auto.
At trial, Danielle testified that she was an owner of Supe-
rior Auto, and the plaintiff “for twenty-eight years [had
stated] that [she] was an owner of that business also.” She
testified that she did “[a]bsolutely everything.” Accord-
ing to Danielle, she worked on cars, towed cars, worked
in the office, maintained the property, and plowed in the
wintertime, “[a]s a business owner does.” She further
testified that the Superior Auto bank accounts were
opened as joint accounts and that, for “[t]he twenty-
eight years [she] was there,” she had authority to sign
checks. According to Danielle, she signed her name to
payroll checks and paid other expenses “[b]ecause I owned
that business also.” Danielle further testified that she
and the plaintiff signed paperwork for the creation of
Superior Auto Center, LLC, in which the plaintiff was
listed as president and she was listed as vice president.13
Additionally, she testified that it was her understanding
that the plaintiff gave her power of attorney “[t]o make
sure that I had everything that I needed for the business
and personally also, because it was known to be mine, or
going to be mine, or was mine . . . .” She further testified
that she and the plaintiff had a conversation in the late
1990s to discuss her being a partner with him when she
realized she could have a career someplace else. Accord-
ing to Danielle, she was “told why leave it’s my business
too . . . .” Danielle further testified that she understood
she had an oral agreement with the plaintiff that she
was a partner and that she would make decisions for
Superior Auto without needing to ask the plaintiff for
13
It is undisputed that Superior Auto Center, LLC, was dissolved in
2006.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

permission. Additionally, she stated that the plaintiff
had transferred a 28 percent interest in the Stonington
property to her over a four year period. The court’s find-
ing that, by the plaintiff’s conduct, he manifested an
intent to operate the business alongside Danielle is amply
supported by the record. See, e.g., Connecticut Light &
Power Co. v. Proctor, 324 Conn. 245, 259–60, 152 A.3d
470 (2016) (“A contract implied in fact, like an express
contract, depends on actual agreement. . . . However,
[i]t is not fatal to a finding of an implied contract that
there were no express manifestations of mutual assent
if the parties, by their conduct, recognized the existence
of contractual obligations. . . . Thus, the conduct of one
party, from which the other may reasonably draw the
inference of a promise, is effective in law as a promise.
. . . As long as the conduct of [the] party is volitional
and that party knows or reasonably ought to know that
the other party might reasonably infer from the conduct
an assent to contract, such conduct will amount to a
manifestation of assent.” (Citations omitted; emphasis
in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)). We
therefore conclude that the court’s finding of a de facto
partnership is not clearly erroneous.
II
The plaintiff next claims that (1) the court improperly
found that joint account holders are joint owners of the
account, (2) the court’s decision was clearly erroneous,
(3) the court improperly found that Absolute Auto did
not have an oral agreement to pay Superior Auto regard-
ing towing and storage fees, and (4) the court improperly
found that, because Danielle was a de facto partner of
the plaintiff, her actions did not constitute statutory
theft or breach of fiduciary duty. We conclude that these
claims are inadequately briefed and, therefore, we decline
to review them.
It is well settled that “[w]e are not required to review
claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently
have held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an
issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . .
“[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to con-
sider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties
must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their
briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court
on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not
been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely
cite a legal principle without analyzing the relation-
ship between the facts of the case and the law cited. .
. . [A]ssignments of error which are merely mentioned
but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will
be deemed abandoned and will not be reviewed by this
court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russell v.
Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 634–35, 882 A.2d 98, cert.
denied, 276 Conn. 924, 888 A.2d 92 (2005), and cert.
denied, 276 Conn. 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005).
First, the plaintiff’s appellant’s brief does not comply
with our rules of appellate procedure governing the
format and substance of appellate briefs. Practice Book
§ 67-4 (b) provides in relevant part that an appellant’s
brief shall contain “[a] concise statement setting forth,
in separately numbered paragraphs, without detail or
discussion, the principal issue or issues involved in the
appeal, with appropriate references to the page or pages
of the brief where the issue is discussed . . . .” (Empha-
sis added.) Although the plaintiff has provided a table
of contents in his principal appellate brief in which he
identifies four ways in which the court allegedly erred;
see footnote 2 of this opinion; he has not provided a
statement of issues pursuant to Practice Book § 67-4 (b).
Moreover, Practice Book § 67-4 (e) provides in rel-
evant part that “argument on each point shall include
a separate, brief statement of the standard of review the
appellant believes should be applied.” (Emphasis added.)
The plaintiff, however, has failed to provide the required
standards of review for each of these remaining claims.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The plaintiff’s procedural lapses might be forgivable
if we were able to determine the substance of his claims
and the underlying legal analysis. The plaintiff’s brief,
however, is confusing and disorganized. The plaintiff
does not cite to any statutory authority for these claims
and only cites to cases without any analysis.14 The few
legal principles that the plaintiff cites are not accompa-
nied by sufficient analysis with regard to the applicability
of the cited authority. See, e.g., Taylor v. Mucci, 288
Conn. 379, 383 n.4, 952 A.2d 776 (2008) (declining to
review claims when party cited only one case and pro-
vided insufficient analysis). “It was incumbent on the
plaintiff to provide a meaningful analysis of his claim[s]
. . . and to include citations to relevant legal authority
and an application of that law to the facts in the present
case. . . . [I]t is not enough merely to mention a possible
argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to
do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument,
and put flesh on its bones.” (Citations omitted; emphasis
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matusz v.
Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc., 234 Conn. App. 581,
593–94, 344 A.3d 208, cert. denied, 353 Conn. 926, 345
A.3d 811 (2025). The plaintiff seems to argue before this
court his version of the facts that he presented before the
trial court, without engaging in any meaningful analysis
in support of his claims. To the extent that we are able to
discern what claims the plaintiff does raise, we conclude
that they are inadequately briefed.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
14
As to the plaintiff’s claim that the court incorrectly concluded that
a joint account holder is a joint owner, the plaintiff merely refers to
General Statutes § 36a-290 and cites to three cases without providing
sufficient analysis in support of his claim or explaining how § 36a-290
impacted the court’s analysis. We further note that the trial court, in
its memorandum of decision, did not state as a matter of law that joint
account holders are joint owners. It merely quoted from § 36a-290 in
a footnote when it found that Danielle’s actions were taken with “[the
plaintiff’s] imprimatur, however tacit, as a joint holder of the Superior
Auto account . . . .” (Footnotes omitted.) It did not, however, ground
its conclusions on an application of § 36a-290.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

RONALD DAIGNEAULT v. DANIELLE
KOLASHUK ET AL.
(AC 47259)
Suarez, Clark and Westbrook, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the defendants on
his claims for, inter alia, statutory theft and breach of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiff owned and operated an auto repair business, and, for approximately
twenty-eight years, the plaintiff and his daughter, the defendant D, jointly
operated the business. D’s husband owned the defendant A Co., which peri-
odically stored towed vehicles on the property of the business. The plaintiff
claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that there was a de facto
partnership between the plaintiff and D. Held:

The trial court’s finding that there was a de facto partnership between the
plaintiff and D was not clearly erroneous, as there was ample support in the
record for such a finding.

This court declined to review various of the plaintiff’s other claims, includ-
ing claims that the trial court improperly found that joint account holders
are joint owners of the account and that A Co. did not have an oral agree-
ment to pay the business for the storage of vehicles, as those claims were
inadequately briefed.

Argued April 23, 2025—officially released March 24, 2026

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, statutory
theft, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court
in the judicial district of New London, where the court,
Knox, J., granted the motion to dismiss filed by the
defendant Auto Magic, LLC; thereafter, Matthew Kola-
shuk et al. were cited in as defendants; subsequently,
the named defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter,
the case was tried to the court, Jacobs, J.; subsequently,
the court, Jacobs, J., granted the defendant Michael
Kolashuk’s motion for a directed verdict and rendered
judgment thereon; judgment for the named defendant
et al. on the complaint and for the named defendant on
the counterclaim, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
Frank J. Liberty, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Kyle J. Zrenda, with whom was Isabel V. Del Vecchio,
for the appellee (named defendant).
Michael J. Kopsick, for the appellee (defendant Abso-
lute Auto Body, Inc.).

Opinion

SUAREZ, J. The plaintiff, Ronald Daigneault, indi-
vidually and doing business as Superior Auto Center
(Superior Auto), appeals following the judgment of the
trial court rendered in favor of the defendants Danielle
Kolashuk, individually and as trustee of the Daigneault
Family Irrevocable Trust (trust), Michael Kolashuk,
individually and as successor trustee of the trust, and
Absolute Auto Body, Inc. (Absolute Auto), on all counts
of the plaintiff’s revised third amended complaint.1 On
appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly
found there was a de facto partnership between the plain-
tiff and Danielle, (2) the court improperly found that
joint account holders are joint owners of the account,
(3) the court’s decision was clearly erroneous, (4) the
court improperly found that Absolute Auto did not have
an oral agreement to pay Superior Auto for the storage
of vehicles, and (5) the court improperly found that,
because Danielle was a de facto partner of the plaintiff,
her actions did not constitute statutory theft or breach
of fiduciary duty.2 We disagree with the plaintiff’s first
1
Also named as defendants in this action were Matthew Kolashuk
and Michael Kolashuk, as legal guardian of John Doe 1 and John Doe
2. The defendants Matthew Kolashuk, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 are
beneficiaries of the trust. These defendants are not participating in
this appeal. For the sake of clarity, we refer to Danielle Kolashuk as
Danielle and to Michael Kolashuk as Michael.
2
The plaintiff’s brief is not a model of clarity. In his principal appellate
brief, the plaintiff characterizes his claims of error as follows: “Both
legally and factually, the trial court erred in finding a de facto part-
nership between the [plaintiff] and [Danielle],” “[t]he trial court erred
in finding joint account holders are joint owners,” “[t]he trial court’s
decision is clearly erroneous,” “[d]id the trial court err that [Absolute
Auto] did not have an oral agreement with Superior Auto,” and “[t]he
trial court erred as to not finding conversion, civil theft, and breach
of fiduciary duty.” The plaintiff did not include a statement of issues
pursuant to Practice Book § 67-4 (b). We have reframed the plaintiff’s
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

claim and conclude that the remaining claims are inad-
equately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
The following procedural history and facts, as found
by the trial court or otherwise undisputed in the record,
are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plain-
tiff owned and operated Superior Auto, a business that
maintained and repaired automobiles. Superior Auto is
located at 92 Stonington Road in Norwich (Stonington
property). Danielle is the plaintiff’s daughter and the
trustee of the trust. Danielle worked with the plaintiff
at Superior Auto for nearly three decades. From the
late 1980s until 2016, the plaintiff and Danielle jointly
operated Superior Auto. In 2007, and again in 2011,
the plaintiff executed power of attorney agreements in
which he granted Danielle the unilateral authority to
make gifts on his behalf. The 2011 power of attorney,
which was in effect at the time of the underlying events,
provided in relevant part: “I, Ronald Daigneault . . .
do hereby appoint my daughter, Danielle M. Kolashuk
. . . [m]y [attorney-in-fact] TO ACT . . . [i]n my name,
place and stead . . . to make gifts of any assets owned
by me or any interest in property owned by me to . . .
my issue, including my attorney-in-fact . . . . All such
gifts may be made at such times and in such amounts as
my attorney-in-fact may determine in his/her sole and
absolute discretion.” On April 18, 2017, the plaintiff
revoked both power of attorney agreements. Michael
is Danielle’s husband and the owner of Absolute Auto.
Michael is also the successor trustee of the trust. In
2015, Danielle discovered that the plaintiff was hav-
ing an extramarital affair and confronted the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, Danielle then attempted to
blackmail him and demanded that he leave the business,
or she would reveal his extramarital affair to his wife.
In July, 2018, the plaintiff commenced the present
action against the defendants. The revised third amended
claims, in some instances condensing closely related claims, to more
accurately reflect the arguments in his briefs. See, e.g., Doe v. Quin-
nipiac University, 218 Conn. App. 170, 173 n.4, 291 A.3d 153 (2023).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

complaint (operative complaint) was filed on February 15,
2022. Counts one through five of the operative complaint
were brought against Danielle in her individual capacity
or as trustee of the trust and sounded in statutory theft,
conversion, forgery, and breach of fiduciary duty. Count
six sought termination of the trust.3 Count seven was
brought against Absolute Auto, alleging failure to pay
storage fees. Counts eight and nine were brought against
Michael and sounded in statutory theft and conversion.
Count ten was brought against Danielle and asserted a
claim of fraudulent concealment pursuant to General
Statutes § 52-595.4 With respect to the counts of statu-
tory theft and conversion brought against Danielle, the
plaintiff alleged that Danielle “used [her power of attor-
ney] to withdraw $30,440.06 in October and November,
2015, for her own personal use” and stole “approximately
$614,583.43 from [Superior Auto].” With respect to the
forgery count, the plaintiff alleged that Danielle forged
his name on his retirement check and on additional checks
from Superior Auto. With respect to the count of breach
of fiduciary duty brought against Danielle as attorney-in-
fact, the plaintiff alleged that Danielle breached a duty
owed to him under the power of attorney. With respect
to the count of breach of fiduciary duty brought against
Danielle in her capacity as trustee, the plaintiff alleged
that Danielle failed to pay property taxes on a certain
property located in Voluntown (Voluntown property),
which was owned by the trust.
On May 10, 2023, Danielle filed an answer generally
denying the allegations of the operative complaint. By
way of special defense, she alleged that, “[t]o the extent
the plaintiff makes claims and seeks damages for any
allegedly tortious action of any party accruing more than
three years prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, all such
3
It appears from the plaintiff’s principal appellate brief before this
court that he is not challenging the court’s judgment as to count six.
4
General Statutes § 52-595 provides: “If any person, liable to an action
by another, fraudulently conceals from him the existence of the cause
of such action, such cause of action shall be deemed to accrue against
such person so liable therefor at the time when the person entitled to
sue thereon first discovers its existence.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

claims and damages are barred by applicable statute of
limitations,” “[t]he plaintiff retained a life use on the
[Voluntown property] and, therefore, payment of taxes
on the property was his responsibility, and not that of
[any] trustee of the [trust],” “[a]t all material times, the
plaintiff was a signatory to all bank accounts in question
and/or account holder to any other financial accounts in
question and had access to all business books, comput-
ers, records and tax returns . . . [and] [t]he plaintiff,
through his own incompetence, neglect or disinterest,
[h]as caused or contributed to his own claim for damages
and loss,” “[t]he plaintiff acted with unclean hands and
is therefore barred from recovery,” and “[s]ome or all
of the claims of the [plaintiff] are barred as he implic-
itly or expressly consented to the actions of [Danielle].”
Danielle also filed a counterclaim seeking a partition of
the Stonington property.
Michael filed an answer to the plaintiff’s original
complaint in which he generally denied the plaintiff’s
allegations. By way of special defense, he asserted that
the claims against him were barred by the statute of
limitations, that the plaintiff was responsible for pay-
ment of property taxes at the Voluntown property, that
the plaintiff was a signatory to all bank accounts from
which Danielle allegedly stole and to any other financial
accounts in question, that the plaintiff’s alleged losses
were due to “his own incompetence, neglect or disinter-
est,” and that the plaintiff “fail[ed] to state a cause of
action” because no “legal duty [to protect the plaintiff
from the alleged actions of Danielle] exists or can be
imposed upon [Michael].”
Absolute Auto also filed an answer to the plaintiff’s
original complaint generally denying the allegations
against it and, by way of special defense, alleged that it
had permission and consent of a duly authorized owner of
the property to store towed vehicles at Superior Auto and
that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The court, Jacobs, J., held a trial over the course of
eight days between June and August, 2023. The court
heard testimony from, inter alia, the plaintiff; the
plaintiff’s forensic expert, Nancy Riella; Danielle; and
Michael. The court also admitted several exhibits into
evidence. Posttrial briefs were filed thereafter. At the
close of the plaintiff’s case, Michael made a motion for a
directed verdict, which the court granted.5 On December
21, 2023, the court issued a memorandum of decision,
in which it rendered judgment against the plaintiff on
all counts of the plaintiff’s operative complaint and in
favor of Danielle on her counterclaim.6
In its memorandum of decision, the court found that it
“did not find the testimony of [the plaintiff] to be cred-
ible. His assertion that [Danielle], with whom he had
worked for nearly three decades, was not his de facto
business partner belies the fact that he had conveyed
to her a 28 percent stake in the [Stonington property]
with the intention of making still further conveyances
to her of his interest in the land; that he held her out
to the world as his partner; that he made her a joint
holder of his business accounts; that he had once named
her in corporate filings as a joint holder of his business
accounts; that he had once named her in corporate filings
as the vice president of the corporation; and that he had
entrusted to her the complete and unfettered operation
of the business, thereby enabling him to do nothing more
each day than turn a wrench. He denies knowing of and
acquiescing to [Danielle’s] use of Superior Auto funds
for personal needs and wants but expresses regret for
having allowed her to do that. He accuses her of looting
his business when he was, himself, using Superior Auto
as his own personal piggy bank. The evidence indicates
5
The plaintiff does not challenge on appeal the court’s judgment as
to Michael.
6
Although the court found in favor of Danielle on her counterclaim,
the court did not order a sale of the Stonington property, as she had
requested. Rather, the court ordered a hearing to be held to determine
the fair market value of the Stonington property to “enable the equi-
table distribution of the property with payment to [Danielle] of just
compensation for her interest in that property.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

that they were every bit a team and that [the plaintiff]
regarded them as a team until Danielle outed her father’s
infidelity, prompting him to then deny that they had
ever been a team. He would have the court believe that
the same daughter who had encouraged him to have an
extramarital affair reacted angrily—even threatening
to blackmail him—upon discovering that he was having
an extramarital affair.” (Emphasis omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)
The court also found that “[Danielle’s] testimony is
not without its infirmities. The court has little doubt
that Danielle liked to gamble and that she probably took
Superior Auto income to the casino, though the record
does not bear out a record of large gambling losses or
other signs of compulsivity. She claims, persuasively,
that she was a partner in Superior Auto but filed a claim
for unemployment compensation as a W-2 wage earner
after she had separated from the business, raising the
specter of unemployment compensation fraud and call-
ing into question her own credibility. The court doubts
the veracity of her inability to recall withdrawing funds
from the Superior Auto account and depositing them
into her personal account at Mohegan Sun. Likewise,
the court finds her testimony that certain checks that
were written to her on the Superior Auto account were
intended as either cash for [the plaintiff] or vendor labor
to be lacking in credibility. Still, on balance, the court
finds her testimony to have been more credible than
[the plaintiff’s testimony].” (Footnote omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)
The court further found that the plaintiff “gave Dan-
ielle carte blanche to run the business of Superior Auto.
And run it she did, with her hands both on the books and
the cars themselves, towing them, changing oil, repairing
brakes, doing tune-ups. Like her father, she used funds
from the Superior Auto account to pay for personal
expenses, including property taxes on the various proper-
ties that she and her husband owned. Like her father, she
gifted Superior Auto funds to herself. She did all of this
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

with her father’s imprimatur, however tacit, as a joint
holder of the Superior Auto account and an Ameritrade
account and having received unrestricted gifting pow-
ers from him by way of a power of attorney, which he
executed, freely and voluntarily, in the presence of his
attorney. . . . [T]he evidence shows that, as his de facto
partner, [Danielle] had as much right to the Superior
Auto funds as [the plaintiff] did. Thus, the court finds
that the plaintiff has not proven that, more likely than
not, Danielle converted funds rightfully belonging to the
plaintiff . . . .” (Emphasis omitted; footnotes omitted.)
According to the court, Danielle “used the Superior
Auto accounts as her own piggy bank . . . .” The court,
however, found that she, “as a joint holder of those
accounts and her father’s de facto partner, and know-
ing that her father did so . . . reasonably believed that
she, too, had the right to do so . . . .” The court further
found that there were no “explicit limitations placed
on her right to use the funds in those accounts . . . .”
Finally, the court found that, “having been granted
the unrestricted power to gift [the plaintiff’s] assets
to herself [Danielle] reasonably believed that she could
use funds in his investment and retirement accounts
with impunity . . . .” The court stated that “[t]he powers
bestowed on an attorney-in-fact by a power of attorney
are typically checked by the attorney-in-fact’s fiduciary
responsibility to the giver of those powers. Not so here,
where [the plaintiff] gave [Danielle] the unfettered power
to make gifts to herself, her spouse and her issue and
where [General Statutes § 1-350m (a) (3)]7 authorizes an
attorney-in-fact to act within the scope of the authority
granted. Why he gave her that power is unknown. But
having executed that power of attorney freely and volun-
tarily in the presence of his friend and attorney, Michael
7
General Statutes § 1-350m (a) provides: “Notwithstanding provisions
in the power of attorney, an agent that has accepted appointment shall:
(1) Act in accordance with the principal’s reasonable expectations, and,
if such expectations are unknown, make reasonable efforts to ascertain
the principal’s expectations and act, otherwise, in the principal’s best
interest; (2) Act in good faith; and (3) Act only within the scope of
authority granted in the power of attorney.”
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Lahan, and two witnesses, [the plaintiff’s] claims that he
did not intend to give [Danielle] that unfettered power
and that he did not understand the implications of the
gifting power ring hollow.” (Footnote added.) The court
concluded that “the gifts were not grifts, and profligacy
is not a tort.”8
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of forgery, the court
found that “the only proof of forgery is the plaintiff’s
self-serving testimony, and the court has found his tes-
timony to be lacking credibility.” Additionally, the court
found that the plaintiff “admitted that he had no idea
who had forged his signature.” The court, therefore,
concluded that “the plaintiff’s forgery claim fails.”
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of breach of fiduciary
duty to Superior Auto, the court found that the plaintiff
had failed to meet his burden of proof. Specifically, the
court found that “the use of Superior Auto funds for the
personal benefit of its owners was Superior Auto’s modus
operandi and, if this is the way they did business, the
court cannot find that [Danielle], in doing business in this
usual and customary—if unconventional—way, breached
her fiduciary duty to Superior Auto.” (Emphasis omit-
ted.) The court further found that, “[t]o the extent that
the plaintiff claims that [Danielle] breached her fiduciary
duty to him as his attorney-in-fact, that claim fails due to
the vastness of the gifting power [that] he had freely and
voluntarily given to his daughter. Moreover, the court
rejects as lacking credibility the claims that [Danielle]
used her power of attorney to take out a $100,000 home
equity loan against the plaintiff’s property in Lisbon,
Connecticut, and a loan against a life insurance policy
insuring the life of the plaintiff.”
In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim against Absolute
Auto for failure to pay towing and storage charges, the
court found that “the towing and storage arrangement
as between [Absolute Auto] and Superior Auto was one of
mutual convenience and benefit between family members
8
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim of statutory theft for the
same reasons.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

for which no payment was expected . . . .” The court
credited “the testimony of [Danielle] that, as a de facto
owner of Superior Auto and owner of 28 percent of the
land on which the vehicles were stored, she permitted . . .
Absolute Auto . . . to store towed vehicles there. The
court finds [the plaintiff’s] claim that [Absolute Auto]
had agreed to pay Superior [Auto] for storing vehicles at
Superior [Auto] to be nothing but an invention conjured
up by the [plaintiff] in his vindictive rampage.”
Finally, with respect to Danielle’s counterclaim for
partition of the Stonington property, the court concluded
that, “[a]s [Danielle] has only a 28 percent interest in
the [Stonington property] and as Superior Auto is situ-
ated on that property, the court finds that a sale would
not promote the interests of the owners and, therefore,
orders, pursuant to [General Statutes § 52-500 (a)],9 such
equitable distribution of the property, with payment of
just compensation to the owners of such minimal inter-
est, as will better promote the interests of the owners.”10
(Footnote added.) This appeal followed. Additional facts
will be set forth as necessary.
I
The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly
found that there was a de facto partnership between the
plaintiff and Danielle. We are not persuaded.
9
General Statutes § 52-500 (a) provides: “Any court of equitable
jurisdiction may, upon the complaint of any person interested, order
the sale of any property, real or personal, owned by two or more persons,
when, in the opinion of the court, a sale will better promote the interests
of the owners. If the court determines that one or more of the persons
owning such real or personal property have only a minimal interest in
such property and a sale would not promote the interests of the owners,
the court may order such equitable distribution of such property, with
payment of just compensation to the owners of such minimal interest,
as will better promote the interests of the owners.”
10
We note that the court did not expressly address count ten of the
operative complaint, alleging fraudulent concealment of a cause of
action. It is not disputed, however, that the court did not reach the defen-
dants’ statute of limitations defenses, and any allegation relating to the
doctrine of fraudulent concealment would have been relevant only as a
potential avenue to toll the applicable statute of limitations. See, e.g.,
Curto v. Hartmann, 235 Conn. App. 40, 49–50, 344 A.3d 1244 (2025).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The parties disagree over the proper standard of review
that should apply to this claim. The plaintiff asserts that
his claim involves “review of the trial court’s legal and
factual determination that there was a de facto [partner-
ship]” and, therefore, this court should apply plenary
review. Danielle counters that the court should “apply
a clearly erroneous standard to its review of the trial
court’s finding of a partnership.” We agree with Danielle
that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies
because the existence of a de facto partnership is a ques-
tion of fact for the trier. See Villanueva v. Villanueva,
206 Conn. App. 36, 40, 260 A.3d 568, cert. denied, 338
Conn. 913, 259 A.3d 653 (2021).
General Statutes § 34-301 (12) defines the term “[p]art-
nership” as “an association of two or more persons to
carry on as co-owners a business for profit formed under
section 34-314,11 predecessor law or comparable law of
another jurisdiction . . . .” (Footnote added.) Moreover,
§ 34-301 (13) defines the term “[p]artnership agreement”
as the “agreement, whether written, oral or implied,
among the partners concerning the partnership, includ-
ing amendments to the partnership agreement.”
This court recently had occasion to review the appro-
priateness of a trial court’s finding of an implied, or
“de facto,” partnership.12 In Villanueva v. Villanueva,
supra, 206 Conn. App. 36, a case similar to the present
one, the trial court found that the plaintiff started a
small landscaping business in 2005. Id., 38. In 2007, the
defendant, who was the plaintiff’s brother, started work-
ing for the plaintiff in the landscaping business “initially
as an employee, but as the business grew the brothers
became de facto equal partners, sharing the profits, and
the management of the business. No written partnership
11
General Statutes § 34-314 provides in relevant part: “Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, the association
of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit
forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a part-
nership. . . .”
12
“An implied partnership may be labeled a ‘de facto’ partnership.”
68 C.J.S. 273, Partnership § 23 (2020).
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

agreement was ever entered into by the brothers.” (Inter-
nal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The trial court further
found that the brothers split their duties, “as over time,
one crew did landscaping and the other did masonry
and tree work. [The plaintiff] worked on increasing the
customer base and supervised a masonry/tree crew in
the field; [the defendant] took over as bookkeeper and
was responsible for paperwork, but also supervised the
landscaping crew.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id. The court further found that the business accounts
were “opened by [the defendant] and he was in charge of
deposits and withdrawals. Funds were withdrawn from
the accounts by both brothers as needed to pay their per-
sonal expenses rather than drawing a salary.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., 39.
“Sometime in 2014, [the plaintiff] found himself
locked out of the landscaping business as [the defen-
dant], without warning, took all the customers, crew,
tools, vehicles and equipment used in the landscaping
side of the business, together with all [of] the cash in
the accounts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
After a court trial, the court issued a memorandum of
decision in which it found that an implied partnership
existed between the parties and the defendant breached
the terms of the implied partnership agreement. See id.,
40. Specifically, the trial court found that “there [was]
strong evidence the parties were de facto partners.”
(Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id., 41. The defendant appealed to this court, claiming
that the trial court improperly found that an implied
partnership existed between the parties. Id., 37. This
court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id., 46. It
explained that “[i]t is well settled that the existence of an
implied in fact contract is a question of fact for the trier. .
. . Accordingly, our review is limited to a determination
of whether the decision of the trial court is clearly erro-
neous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there
is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. .
. . Because it is the trial court’s function to weigh the
evidence and determine credibility, we give great defer-
ence to its findings. . . . In reviewing factual findings,
[w]e do not examine the record to determine whether
the [court] could have reached a conclusion other than
the one reached. . . . Instead, we make every reasonable
presumption . . . in favor of the trial court’s ruling. . . .
“With respect to implied in fact contracts, we have
recognized that [w]hether [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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 40–41.
This court in Villanueva concluded that the trial court’s
finding that, “by his conduct, the plaintiff manifested an
intent to operate the business alongside the defendant
[was] amply supported by the record.” Id., 42. It therefore
held that the trial court’s finding of an implied partner-
ship was not clearly erroneous. Id.
In the present case, the court similarly found that
“[t]he evidence indicates that [the plaintiff and Danielle]
were every bit a team and that [the plaintiff] regarded
them as a team until Danielle outed her father’s infidel-
ity, prompting him to then deny that they had ever been a
team.” The court found that the plaintiff “had conveyed
to [Danielle] a 28 percent stake in the land on which Supe-
rior Auto was situated with the intention of making still
further conveyances to her of his interest in that land;
that he held her out to the world as his partner; that he
made her a joint holder of his business accounts; that he
had once named her in corporate filings as the vice presi-
dent of the corporation; and that he had entrusted to her
the complete and unfettered operation of the business,
thereby enabling him to do nothing more each day than
‘turn a wrench.’ ” The court further found that Danielle
“claims, persuasively, that she was a partner in Superior
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

Auto” and that the plaintiff “gave Danielle carte blanche
to run the business of Superior Auto. And run it she did,
with her hands both on the books and the cars themselves
. . . . Like her father, she used funds from the Superior
Auto account to pay for personal expenses . . . . Like her
father, she gifted Superior Auto funds to herself. She
did all of this with her father’s imprimatur . . . .”
The record supports the court’s finding that the plain-
tiff and Danielle were de facto partners in Superior Auto.
At trial, Danielle testified that she was an owner of Supe-
rior Auto, and the plaintiff “for twenty-eight years [had
stated] that [she] was an owner of that business also.” She
testified that she did “[a]bsolutely everything.” Accord-
ing to Danielle, she worked on cars, towed cars, worked
in the office, maintained the property, and plowed in the
wintertime, “[a]s a business owner does.” She further
testified that the Superior Auto bank accounts were
opened as joint accounts and that, for “[t]he twenty-
eight years [she] was there,” she had authority to sign
checks. According to Danielle, she signed her name to
payroll checks and paid other expenses “[b]ecause I owned
that business also.” Danielle further testified that she
and the plaintiff signed paperwork for the creation of
Superior Auto Center, LLC, in which the plaintiff was
listed as president and she was listed as vice president.13
Additionally, she testified that it was her understanding
that the plaintiff gave her power of attorney “[t]o make
sure that I had everything that I needed for the business
and personally also, because it was known to be mine, or
going to be mine, or was mine . . . .” She further testified
that she and the plaintiff had a conversation in the late
1990s to discuss her being a partner with him when she
realized she could have a career someplace else. Accord-
ing to Danielle, she was “told why leave it’s my business
too . . . .” Danielle further testified that she understood
she had an oral agreement with the plaintiff that she
was a partner and that she would make decisions for
Superior Auto without needing to ask the plaintiff for
13
It is undisputed that Superior Auto Center, LLC, was dissolved in
2006.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

permission. Additionally, she stated that the plaintiff
had transferred a 28 percent interest in the Stonington
property to her over a four year period. The court’s find-
ing that, by the plaintiff’s conduct, he manifested an
intent to operate the business alongside Danielle is amply
supported by the record. See, e.g., Connecticut Light &
Power Co. v. Proctor, 324 Conn. 245, 259–60, 152 A.3d
470 (2016) (“A contract implied in fact, like an express
contract, depends on actual agreement. . . . However,
[i]t is not fatal to a finding of an implied contract that
there were no express manifestations of mutual assent
if the parties, by their conduct, recognized the existence
of contractual obligations. . . . Thus, the conduct of one
party, from which the other may reasonably draw the
inference of a promise, is effective in law as a promise.
. . . As long as the conduct of [the] party is volitional
and that party knows or reasonably ought to know that
the other party might reasonably infer from the conduct
an assent to contract, such conduct will amount to a
manifestation of assent.” (Citations omitted; emphasis
in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)). We
therefore conclude that the court’s finding of a de facto
partnership is not clearly erroneous.
II
The plaintiff next claims that (1) the court improperly
found that joint account holders are joint owners of the
account, (2) the court’s decision was clearly erroneous,
(3) the court improperly found that Absolute Auto did
not have an oral agreement to pay Superior Auto regard-
ing towing and storage fees, and (4) the court improperly
found that, because Danielle was a de facto partner of
the plaintiff, her actions did not constitute statutory
theft or breach of fiduciary duty. We conclude that these
claims are inadequately briefed and, therefore, we decline
to review them.
It is well settled that “[w]e are not required to review
claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently
have held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an
issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . .
“[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to con-
sider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties
must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their
briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court
on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not
been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely
cite a legal principle without analyzing the relation-
ship between the facts of the case and the law cited. .
. . [A]ssignments of error which are merely mentioned
but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will
be deemed abandoned and will not be reviewed by this
court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russell v.
Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 634–35, 882 A.2d 98 cert.
denied, 276 Conn. 924, 888 A.2d 92 (2005), and cert.
denied, 276 Conn. 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005).
First, the plaintiff’s appellant’s brief does not comply
with our rules of appellate procedure governing the
format and substance of appellate briefs. Practice Book
§ 67-4 (b) provides in relevant part that an appellant’s
brief shall contain “[a] concise statement setting forth,
in separately numbered paragraphs, without detail or
discussion, the principal issue or issues involved in the
appeal, with appropriate references to the page or pages
of the brief where the issue is discussed . . . .” (Empha-
sis added.) Although the plaintiff has provided a table
of contents in his principal appellate brief in which he
identifies four ways in which the court allegedly erred;
see footnote 2 of this opinion; he has not provided a
statement of issues pursuant to Practice Book § 67-4 (b).
Moreover, Practice Book § 67-4 (e) provides in rel-
evant part that “argument on each point shall include
a separate, brief statement of the standard of review the
appellant believes should be applied.” (Emphasis added.)
The plaintiff, however, has failed to provide the required
standards of review for each of these remaining claims.
Daigneault v. Kolashuk

The plaintiff’s procedural lapses might be forgivable
if we were able to determine the substance of his claims
and the underlying legal analysis. The plaintiff’s brief,
however, is confusing and disorganized. The plaintiff
does not cite to any statutory authority for these claims
and only cites to cases without any analysis.14 The few
legal principles that the plaintiff cites are not accompa-
nied by sufficient analysis with regard to the applicability
of the cited authority. See, e.g., Taylor v. Mucci, 288
Conn. 379, 383 n.4, 952 A.2d 776 (2008) (declining to
review claims when party cited only one case and pro-
vided insufficient analysis). “It was incumbent on the
plaintiff to provide a meaningful analysis of his claim[s]
. . . and to include citations to relevant legal authority
and an application of that law to the facts in the present
case. . . . [I]t is not enough merely to mention a possible
argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to
do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument,
and put flesh on its bones.” (Citations omitted; emphasis
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matusz v.
Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc., 234 Conn. App. 581,
593–94, 344 A.3d 208, cert. denied, 353 Conn. 926, 345
A.3d 811 (2025). The plaintiff seems to argue before this
court his version of the facts that he presented before the
trial court, without engaging in any meaningful analysis
in support of his claims. To the extent that we are able to
discern what claims the plaintiff does raise, we conclude
that they are inadequately briefed.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
14
As to the plaintiff’s claim that the court incorrectly concluded that
a joint account holder is a joint owner, the plaintiff merely refers to
General Statutes § 36a-290 and cites to three cases without providing
sufficient analysis in support of his claim or explaining how § 36a-290
impacted the court’s analysis. We further note that the trial court, in
its memorandum of decision, did not state as a matter of law that joint
account holders are joint owners. It merely quoted from § 36a-290 in
a footnote when it found that Danielle’s actions were taken with “[the
plaintiff’s] imprimatur, however tacit, as a joint holder of the Superior
Auto account . . . .” (Footnotes omitted.) It did not, however, ground
its conclusions on an application of § 36a-290.