Breach of Contract Cases

CIVIL - definition of employee, independent contractor unemployment benefits R.C. 4141.282 just cause fraud right to control work OAC 4141-3-05(B) affirmed trial court's finding applicant was an independent contractor.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the defendant breached the parties' marital separation agreement by failing to disclose certain assets. Following a trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. On appeal, he claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred by concluding that his action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (§ 52- 576 [a]) and determining that it lacked continuing jurisdiction to enforce the parties' separation agreement. Held that the plaintiff's appeal was moot; because the plaintiff failed to challenge an independent ground for the court's adverse ruling, namely, the court's determination that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim failed on the merits due to insufficient evidence that the defendant had breached the separation agreement, even if this court agreed with the plaintiff's claim that his action was not barred by the statute of limitations, there would be no practical relief that could be afforded to the plaintiff because of his failure to challenge the trial court's finding on the merits. Argued October 21—officially released December 24, 2019

The plaintiff, John Ferreira, appealed from the dismissal of his first amended complaint against his former employer, Child and Family Services of Newport County. The plaintiff had asserted claims such as defamation constructive termination discrimination based on disparate treatment, age, and gender pursuant to G.L. 1956 chapter 112 of title 42 and G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A hearing justice of the Superior Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that his first amended complaint fulfilled the purpose of the general pleading rules by providing adequate notice to the defendant of his claims and that he should have been allowed to again amend his complaint. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had not sufficiently stated any of the claims he asserted in his amended complaint. The Court also held that the amended complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice because the hearing justice had previously explained the deficiencies in the plaintiff's complaint, but the plaintiff had not rectified the problems when he filed his first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Wife/Appellant appeals the trial court's denial of relief on her post-divorce petition for contempt and breach of contract. The parties' MDA awarded Wife 50% of Husband/Appellee's FERS Supplement, which was subsequently terminated due to Husband's yearly earned income being in excess of the FERS cap of $15,120.00. Because the parties' MDA did not preclude Husband from earning income in excess of the cap, and did not include a provision for such occurrence, the trial court properly denied Wife's petition. Although the trial court sua sponte modified child support to award an additional amount equal to the lost FERS Supplement, it did so in error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of Husband's motion to alter or amend the award of additional child support. Because the MDA allows the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees and expenses, we reverse the trial court's denial of Husband's reasonable fees and expenses, and remand for determination of same, and for entry of judgment thereon. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.