FAMILIES SHOULD NEVER LITIGATE THEIR DIFFERENCES

By Barry Zalma on March 26, 2026

DE FACTO PARTNERSHIP AFFIRMED

Implied In Fact Contract Can Only Exist However Where There Is No Express One

Post number 5311

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v77lu6y-families-should-never-litigate-their-differences.html and at https://youtu.be/Tdq_j2PKgVk

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.

Whether the trial court properly found the existence of a de facto partnership between the plaintiff and D.
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that joint account holders are joint owners of the account.
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.

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.