(No) Thanks For (Time) Sharing

The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed in part a damages award to an attorney whose identity was used to market time shares.

The plaintiff had appealed to assert an entitlement to treble damages on one count of his complaint

The following facts, as found by the court in its June 28, 2023 memorandum of decision, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff’s claim. ‘‘The plaintiff is a practicing, licensed attorney in the state of Connecticut with a valid juris number. The defendants perpetrated a fraud and identity theft by using the plaintiff’s juris number, establishing a website with a Connecticut address, and using the plaintiff’s name to convince members of the public in the United States and Canada to sell their Mexican time-share[s], and to provide the defendants with money based on the false representations that the funds [would] be refunded at a real estate closing which the defendants never intended to take place.

‘‘The plaintiff became aware of this when his mother received a phone call in February, 2019, after she had been contacted by someone looking for the plaintiff. After learning that this person from Lansing, Michigan was a potential victim of a scam, the plaintiff immediately contacted the Statewide Grievance Committee. He also called the number on the fraudulent website and spoke to someone who made threats against him, stating ‘calm down and you won’t get hurt.’

‘‘The plaintiff did whatever he could to prevent the fraud from continuing. He was instrumental in causing the website to be taken down twice—it has since been put back on the Internet. On March 9, 2019, he made complaints to the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney. . . to the Department of Consumer Protection, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [(FBI)]. He heard nothing from the state’s attorney’s office nor the Department of Consumer Protection until he was notified on May 14, 2019, by the Office of the Attorney General that a complaint had been filed against him regarding a victim of the fraud and scam.

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the FTC and initiated this lawsuit.

On June 30, 2023, the court issued a memorandum of decision with respect to the identity theft and CUTPA counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The court first concluded that the plaintiff proved his entitlement to damages pursuant to § 52-571h based upon his allegation of identity theft under § 53a-129a. The court further concluded that the plaintiff proved his entitlement to damages under CUTPA.

Trial court damages award

The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on counts three and four of his complaint and awarded damages as follows: ‘‘Damages under . . . [§ 52-571h]: (1) Compensatory damages: $150,000, (2) Attorney’s fees: $20,000, (3) Costs: $1329.21. Damages under CUTPA: (1) Punitive damages: $300,000. Total damages: $471,329.21.’’ This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to award him treble damages in light of mandatory language in § 52-571h (b), following the default judgment rendered against the named defendant on the third count of the complaint.

Held

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the proper remedy is to reverse the judgment of the court awarding compensatory damages of $150,000 pursuant to § 52-571h and to direct the court, on remand, to award treble damages, exclusive of its unchallenged award of costs and attorney’s fees, in the amount of $450,000 on the third count of the plaintiff’s complaint. In light of that relief, we are compelled to further conclude, as a matter of law, that the court’s award of damages under CUTPA cannot stand, as that action was based upon the same transaction, occurrence or event on which the plaintiff based his action for damages resulting from identity theft under § 52-571h. The court’s award of damages under CUTPA thus violates the principle that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only once for the losses he sustained in connection with that transaction, occurrence or event. We therefore reverse the judgment awarding the plaintiff $300,000 in damages on the CUTPA count of the complaint.

(Mike Frisch)