Tunick

The plaintiff, who was a remainder beneficiary of a revocable trust, brought an action for damages against his sisters, B and R, and against D, the administrator of the estate of the plaintiff's mother, S, in connection with the administration of the trust. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that B and S, who had been cotrustees of the trust, had breached their fiduciary duties to him, and that S, D and R had fraudulently concealed, pursuant to statute (§ 52-595), facts that were necessary to his causes of action against them. In 2004, S and B filed an application with the Probate Court to remove the plaintiff as a trustee pursuant to statute (§ 45a-242 (a)). The court thereafter issued a written decree in which it found, inter alia, that the plaintiff had neglected to perform the duties of the trust and ordered his removal as a trustee. The court also issued orders pertaining to certain antique automobiles that were part of the trust. S and B thereafter acted as cotrustees until June, 2013, when the Probate Court issued an order removing them as cotrustees and appointing a successor trustee. After S died in 2015, the Probate Court appointed D the administrator of her estate. The plaintiff commenced his action against B, R and D in May, 2017. The trial court thereafter granted motions to strike that were filed by D and B as to certain counts of the complaint against them that alleged that the trust was a contract they had breached. R, D and B subsequently filed separate motions for summary judgment in May, 2018, in which they alleged that all counts of the complaint against them were time barred pursuant to the three year tort statute (§ 52-577) of limitations. While the three motions for summary judgment were pending, the plaintiff filed a revised complaint that added a count against B sounding in unjust enrichment, which was not thereafter adjudicated in the trial court's ruling on B's motion for summary judgment. The trial court then granted the summary judgment