Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MICHAEL SELVAGGI ET AL. v. RICHARD MIRON ET AL. (AC 20069)
Schaller, Zarella and Pellegrino, Js. Submitted on briefs September 15--officially released November 7, 2000 Counsel

James R. Miron filed a brief for the appellant (defendant Ann Miron). Kevin W. Finch filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this appeal, the defendant Ann Miron1 claims that the trial court (1) incorrectly placed on her the burden of proving that any debt she owed to the plaintiffs, Michael Selvaggi and Monument Setting Company, Inc., was fully discharged and (2) improperly concluded that she was a partner in Lakeview Monument Company, whose business relations with the plaintiffs gave rise to the underlying collection action that led to this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I The defendant first claims that the court improperly placed on her the burden of proving that any debt she owed to the plaintiffs had been fully discharged. We disagree. ``The issue of whether the court held the parties to the proper standard of proof is a question of law. When issues in [an] appeal concern a question of law, this court reviews such claims de novo.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Satti v. Kozek, 58 Conn. App. 768, 771, 755 A.2d 333 (2000). Practice Book

Download Selvaggi v. Miron.pdf

Connecticut Law