author: ESPINOSA, J.

text:
    ENRICO MANGIAFICO ET AL. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
    (AC 33121)
    Gruendel, Espinosa and Borden, Js.

      Argued February 2
    officially released October 23, 2012

      Enrico Mangiafico, pro se, the appellant (named plaintiff).

      Jane D. Comerford, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).

      Peter J. Murphy, for the appellee (defendant board of education of the town of Farmington).
   Opinion

ESPINOSA, J.

The self-represented plaintiff, Enrico Mangiafico, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal from the determination of an impartial hearing board, appointed by the defendant, the state board of education, that his children were not residents of Farmington and, therefore, were not entitled to free school accommodations in Farmington. The plaintiff claims that the court’s dismissal of his appeal was improper because the impartial hearing board incorrectly determined that (1) his children were not residents of Farmington at the time of the hearing; (2) there was no exception to the residency requirement for displacement due to natural disaster; (3) the defendant was not estopped from claiming on the basis of residency that his children were not entitled to free school accommodations; and (4) certain evidence, which the plaintiff obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, should not be admitted into evidence. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The following facts as found by the impartial hearing board are relevant to our consideration of this appeal. In December, 2005, the plaintiff purchased a residence in Farmington (Farmington property), and he, along with his wife and children, began occupying the Farm-ington property in February, 2006. The plaintiffs family maintained significant contacts with Farmington and acted in a manner consistent with an intent to remain Farmington residents. They received mail at the Farm-ington property, paid taxes on the property and listed the property’s address on their motor vehicle registrations. The plaintiff worked in Farmington and the family attended church there.

In April, 2006, additional construction commenced on the Farmington property, and the plaintiff and his family moved back to property that the plaintiff owned in New Britain (New Britain property), where they had been residing continuously since at least 1996 until February, 2006. The plaintiff intended to lease this property beginning in July, 2006, and had executed a written lease with a prospective tenant. The plaintiff intended to move back to the Farmington property upon the completion of the construction.

In June, 2006, heavy rain caused structural damage to the Farmington property, rendering it uninhabitable. The plaintiff attempted to obtain insurance proceeds to complete necessary repairs to the property, but the insurance company refused to distribute such proceeds. Because his family could not return to the Farmington property, the plaintiff cancelled the lease with the prospective tenant for the New Britain property, and he and his family continued to reside at the New Britain property.

In September, 2007, the plaintiffs children began attending school in Farmington. After receiving a complaint that the children were not residing in Farmington, the school board conducted an investigation. Through the investigation, the school board learned that the children were residing in New Britain. On January 8, 2009, the school board notified the plaintiff that his children were not residents of Farmington and, therefore, would not be permitted to attend school in Farmington after January 9, 2009.

At the plaintiffs request, the school board held a hearing on this matter on February 24, 2009. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff was pursuing litigation against his insurance company over its refusal to distribute insurance proceeds, and the Farmington property remained uninhabitable. The Farmington property was placed on the blighted building list on January 14, 2009, and it was still on this fist at the time of the hearing. Although the plaintiff intended to return to the property, at the time of the hearing it was not known when that would occur.

On March 3,2009, the school board issued its decision that, under its policies, the plaintiffs children were not residents of Farmington and were not entitled to free school accommodations. On March 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a timely appeal of this decision with the defendant. The impartial hearing board (hearing board), established by the defendant, held a hearing on May 18, 2009, and issued its decision on May 29, 2009. The hearing board determined that the children were not residents of Farmington because they were not actually residing in the district. Rather, the hearing board determined that the children were residents of New Britain. Therefore, the hearing board held that they were not entitled to free school accommodations in Farmington.

On July 20,2009, the plaintiff appealed from the determination of the hearing board to the Superior Court. Preliminarily, the court noted that the plaintiff was not disputing the facts found by the hearing board; rather, the plaintiff was attempting to distinguish the facts in the present case from those in decisions of the defendant on which the hearing board had relied. Reviewing the hearing board’s findings under the substantial evidence rule, the court determined that the hearing board properly had considered the facts in the record, including evidence supporting a finding that the plaintiff and his family had ties to Farmington. The court agreed with the hearing board that an intent to return to the district, upon which the plaintiff relied, was not a proper basis for a finding of residency and that an indefinite absence of the plaintiff’s family from Farmington defeated the plaintiffs claim that he and his family were residents of Farmington. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

“In accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes §§ 4-166 through 4-189, we review an administrative agency’s decision for abuse of discretion to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 300 Conn. 617, 621-22, 15 A.3d 1063 (2011). “With regard to questions of fact, it is neither the function of the trial court nor of this court to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. . . . Even as to questions of law, [t]he court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission, 300 Conn. 511, 517, 14 A.3d 998 (2011).

“Under this standard, the [c]onclusions reached by [the agency] must be upheld by the [reviewing] court if they are reasonably supported by the record. The credibility of the witnesses and the determination of issues of fact are matters solely within the province of the [agency]. . . . The question is not whether the [reviewing] court would have reached the same conclusion . . . but whether the record before the [agency] supports the decision reached. ... If a [reviewing] court finds that there is substantial evidence to support [an agency’s] findings, it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the [agency]. ... If there is conflicting evidence in support of the [agency’s] stated rationale, the reviewing court . . . cannot substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the [agency]. . . . The agency’s decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rapoport v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 301 Conn. 22, 32-33, 19 A.3d 622 (2011).

Although our review of agency determinations generally is deferential, “we do not defer to the [agency’s] construction of a statute- — a question of law — when . . . the [provisions] at issue previously ha[v]e not been subjected to judicial scrutiny or when the [agency’s] interpretation has not been time tested.” (Intemal quotation marks omitted.) Dept. of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor Relations, 296 Conn. 594, 599, 996 A.2d 729 (2010). When a case “presents a question of law and does not involve an agency’s time-tested interpretation of its regulations . . . the standard of review is [plenary].” Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, supra, 300 Conn. 622.

I

First, the plaintiff claims that the hearing board improperly determined that his children were not residents of Farmington at the time of the hearing and were not entitled to free school accommodations. The plaintiff argues that his family’s intent to return to Farm-ington, his family’s established nexus to Farmington and the fact that he eventually did return to Farmington all support a finding of residency in Farmington. He asserts that the hearing board improperly determined that the facts of this case supported a finding that his family was indefinitely displaced as opposed to temporarily displaced. We disagree.

Under General Statutes § 10-220 (a), local boards of education must ensure that public school is available to “each child of school age residing in the district . . . .” General Statutes § 10-186 provides in relevant part: “(a) Each local or regional board of education shall furnish, by transportation or otherwise, school accommodations so that each child five years of age and over and under twenty-one years of age who is not a graduate of a high school or vocational school may attend public school .... Any board of education which denies school accommodations, including a denial based on an issue of residency, to any such child shall inform the parent or guardian of such child . . . of his right to request a hearing by the board of education in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section. A board of education which has denied school accommodations shall advise the board of education under whose jurisdiction it claims such child should be attending school of the denial. ... (b) (1) If any board of education denies such accommodations, the parent or guardian of any child who is denied schooling . . . may, in writing, request a hearing by the board of education. The board of education may . . . establish a local impartial hearing board of one or more persons not members of the board of education to conduct the hearing. . . . [I]n cases of denial of schooling based on residency, the party denied schooling shall have the burden of proving residency by a preponderance of the evidence. (2) . . . The hearing board may render a determination of actual residence of any child, emancipated minor or pupil eighteen years of age or older where residency is at issue.”

The hearing board determined that, by using the term “actual residence” in § 10-186 (b) (2), the legislature expressed its intent to mean something narrower than what the term “residence” can connote in other contexts. Specifically, the hearing board determined that trial courts had ruled that § 10-186 required the student’s physical presence in the district to support a finding of actual residence. On this point, the hearing board cited Board of Education v. State Board of Education, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-01-0510157-S (June 19, 2002) (32 Conn. L. Rptr. 309) (“ ‘actual resident’ means ‘physically present and living [at a location] as a householder during significant parts of each day and for important purposes consistent with residence’ ”), and Board of Education v. State Board of Education, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-940364754 (October 4, 1995) (15 Conn. L. Rptr. 304) (“the residence of the child for purposes of public school attendance is in the town where [the child’s dwelling] is located”).

Additionally, the hearing board found that the defendant’s decisions consistently reflected this same approach to the residency requirement of §§ 10-186 and 10-220. In Student v. Board of Education, Case No. 98-7 (April 16, 1999), the hearing board held that, to prove actual residence, the party denied schooling had to demonstrate physical presence in the district, not just intent to reside there in the future. In Student v. Regional School District #5 Board of Education, Case No. 98-2 (June 16, 1999), the hearing board held that two students, whose family recently had sold their home in Orange, were still residents of Orange while their family temporarily stayed in East Haven and had a new house built in Orange.

The parties do not dispute the hearing board’s reb-anee on these trial court and hearing board decisions. Rather, the parties disagree regarding the proper characterization of the facts of the present case. The plaintiff, without challenging the hearing board’s application and interpretation of these decisions, discussed previously, asserts that the facts of this case do not support the hearing board’s factual determination that the plaintiffs family did not “actually reside” in Farmington. In so arguing, the plaintiff attempts to distinguish the facts in the present case from those in the decisions relied on by the hearing board. This factual argument properly is reviewed for an abuse of discretion under the substantial evidence test. See Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, supra, 300 Conn. 621-22. Accordingly, we confine our analysis, to this issue, as it is the only issue properly presented by the parties on appeal.

We conclude that the hearing board did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs children did not actually reside in Farmington. At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff and his family still were hving in New Britain, and the Farmington property was on the bbghted budding bst. The plaintiff asserted before the hearing board that he might be able to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Farmington property by November, 2009, but he could not identify a particular date by which he and his family could return to the Farmington property. The hearing board did not abuse its discretion in finding that, at the time of the hearing, the plaintiffs living situation properly could be characterized as an indefinite absence from Farmington. The hearing board properly determined that such an indefinite absence is inconsistent with “actual residence” in Farmington and that, as a result, the plaintiffs children were not entitled to free school accommodations in Farmington.

II

Next, the plaintiff claims that, even if his children were not residents of Farmington for the period of time in question, the hearing board improperly determined that there was no exception to the residency requirement of §§ 10-186 and 10-220 for displacement due to natural disaster. The plaintiff argues that, if a student’s displacement was due to an unforeseen catastrophe, the student should be allowed free school accommodations despite not residing in the district. Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that his children were entitled to protections under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act), 42 U.S.C. § 11301 et seq., because they were “homeless” within the meaning of that act during the period of time in question. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. On consideration of the plaintiffs appeal from the decision of the hearing board, the court determined that the hearing board had left unresolved certain questions that had to be addressed before the court could review its decision. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the hearing board to consider two issues: (1) whether there was an exception to the requirement of actual presence in the school district for temporary removal from the district and (2) assuming that such an exception existed, whether, in the present case, the plaintiffs children were displaced permanently, rather than temporarily.

On remand, the hearing board answered the first question in the negative, maintaining that there was no established exception to the requirement of actual presence in the district. The hearing board noted that, although limited temporary displacement from a district would not defeat a finding of residency, it could not find the plaintiffs children to be Farmington residents because their displacement was of an indefinite duration. The hearing board explained that it could not “find that this indefinite, rather than temporary, arrangement excuses actual presence. Doing so would also impliedly, if not expressly, excuse actual presence for purposes of entitlement to school accommodation ad infinitum. Establishing a standard of entitlement to free school accommodations for an indefinite period of time without actual presence is not supported by the law. This would lead to the same unworkable approach to determining residency that the Connecticut General Assembly specifically addressed when it enacted [Public Acts 1996, No. 96-130] as set forth in the legislative history.”

Whether the residency requirement of §§ 10-186 and 10-220 contemplates an exception for displacement due to natural disaster is a question of law. Therefore, our review is plenary. See Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, supra, 300 Conn. 622. “When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dept. of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor Relations, supra, 296 Conn. 599. General Statutes § l-2z provides: “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”

On the basis of the plain text of §§ 10-186 and 10-220, we conclude that the legislature has not provided a statutory exception from the residency requirement for displacement due to natural disaster. There is no mention of natural disaster in either statute or in related statutes. Furthermore, when the legislature has intended to create exceptions to the residency requirement in recognition of special circumstances, it has done so explicitly. For example, § 10-186 (a) resolved the problem of “border cases” in which a child’s house was located on the border of two towns by providing that “a child residing in a dwelling located in more than one town in this state shall be considered a resident of each town in which the dwelling is located and may attend school in any one of such towns. . . .” General Statutes § 10-186 (a). Accordingly, we conclude that if the legislature intended to create a statutory exception for students displaced due to natural disaster, it would have done so explicitly.

Although we conclude that there is no statutorily mandated exception to the residency requirement for displacement due to natural disaster, we recognize that the defendant may, in the exercise of its discretion, make case-by-case residency determinations that take into consideration displacement due to natural disaster. The defendant has the authority to issue regulations interpreting §§ 10-186 and 10-220. See General Statutes § 10-3a (b) (“[the defendant] shall adopt regulations pursuant to the provisions of [the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act]”); see also General Statutes § 4-166 (13) (setting forth general power of agencies to issue regulations). Furthermore, the defendant may make residency determinations in contested cases. See General Statutes § 10-186 (b) (2) (giving any individuals denied free school accommodations right to request hearing); see also General Statutes § 4-166 (2) (defining general power of agencies to decide contested cases). It is within the discretion of the defendant to interpret “residents” as that term is used in §§ 10-186 and 10-220 to include individuals who are temporarily displaced due to natural disaster.

To the extent that the hearing board determined that the defendant, in the absence of a statutorily mandated natural disaster exception to the residency requirement, has not exercised its discretion to allow for such an exception, we conclude that the hearing board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing board was persuaded by evidence that suggested that the plaintiff did not qualify for any exception to the requirement of actual residence in the district. The hearing board noted that the defendant previously had found that temporary displacement was not inconsistent with a finding of actual residence but determined that the plaintiffs displacement could not be characterized properly as temporary. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no exception to the residency requirement that applied to the plaintiffs case.

The plaintiffs claim that his children were entitled to protections under the McKinney-Vento Act is without merit. “The term ‘homeless children and youths’ . . . (A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of [42 U.S.C. § 11302 (a) (1)]); and (B) . . . includes . . . (i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement . . . 42 U.S.C. § 11434a (2). The unchallenged findings of the hearing board reflect that, at all times relevant to this appeal, the plaintiffs family was living at the New Britain property. The plaintiff was the owner of the property, but he argues that it was not “adequate” because it was a rental property. Other cases in which courts have interpreted the meaning of homelessness within the context of the federal act do not support the plaintiffs suggested interpretation of that act. See, e.g., Lampkin v. District of Columbia, 879 F. Supp. 116, 122-23 (D.D.C. 1996) (holding that families living in shelters and families on the waiting list to enter shelter were homeless for purposes of McKinney-Vento Act). We agree with the court that the plaintiff and his family were not homeless within the meaning of the federal act and, therefore, were not entitled to its protections.

Ill

Next, the plaintiff claims that the hearing board improperly failed to conclude that the defendant was estopped from claiming on the basis of residency that his children were not entitled to free school accommodations. The plaintiff asserts that he justifiably relied on a proof of residency form, provided by the school for enrollment purposes, that allowed the plaintiff to demonstrate his children’s residency by submitting proof of his mortgage on the Farmington property. Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that, in good faith, he relied on certain assurances from the superintendent that he would not be assessed back tuition for time that his family spent living in New Britain while the Farmington property underwent renovations.

Municipal estoppel claims are “inherently fact bound.” Collins Group, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 78 Conn. App. 561, 576, 827 A.2d 764, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911, 832 A.2d 68 (2003). Although the plaintiff raised this estoppel claim before the trial court, our careful review of the court’s decision does not reflect that it addressed the claim or made any factual determinations directly related to the claim. We decline to review the claim on the basis of an inadequate record. See, e.g., Conservation Commission v. Red 11, LLC, 119 Conn. App. 377, 385-88, 987 A.2d 398 (court declines to review claim of municipal estoppel when appellant failed to furnish Appellate Court with record that included trial court’s findings related to such claim), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 924, 991 A.2d 566 (2010).

IV

Finally, the plaintiff claims that the hearing board improperly did not admit certain evidence obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The plaintiff asserts that this evidence would have demonstrated that Farmington has treated other families differently from the way it treated his family, namely, by affording free tuition to students who had been displaced from Farmington for longer periods of time than had the plaintiffs children. This evidence, the plaintiff argues, is necessary for the proper resolution of the issues on appeal. We disagree.

The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. At the May 18, 2009 hearing, the plaintiff represented to the hearing board that he had made two separate requests under the Freedom of Information Act for materials related to previous decisions of the defendant in residency cases. In response to his first request, he had received documents related to a case heard by the defendant in which, according to the plaintiff, the family received greater leniency than was granted to his family in the present case. The plaintiff maintained that he reviewed these documents and, having decided that they would be relevant to the hearing, made a second request, which was pending at the time of the hearing, for documents relating to other residency cases heard by the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested a continuance to allow for a response to his second request. The hearing board declined to consider as a full exhibit material from the first request on the ground that it related to only a single case, which did not, on its own, demonstrate the pattern of disparate treatment alleged by the plaintiff. Additionally, the hearing board declined to grant a continuance for the second request, stating that it was mere speculation that the requested documents would support the plaintiffs argument.

We conclude that the hearing board did not abuse its discretion. It was reasonable for the hearing board to determine, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the documents received through the first Freedom of Information Act request and those that the plaintiff anticipated receiving through the second request were not sufficient grounds on which to base a showing of disparate treatment by the defendant. Furthermore, there was substantial evidence in the record, in the form of previous decisions of the defendant that had been admitted, that supported the defendant’s contention that its refusal to grant the plaintiffs children free school accommodations was consistent with its internal policies and its prior application of those policies.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The plaintiff’s wife, Concettina Mangiafico, also was a plaintiff in the appeal to the Superior Court but has not appealed to this court from the Superior Court’s judgment. We therefore refer in this opinion to Enrico Mangiafico as the plaintiff.

       The board of education of the town of Farmington (school board) was the named defendant before the impartial hearing board. The school board filed a motion to intervene as a party defendant in the plaintiffs appeal to the Superior Court, which the court granted. The school board, however, did not file a brief in this appeal. Therefore, we refer to the state board of education as the defendant.

       See General Statutes § 1-200 et seq.

       Additionally, in his statement of issues, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to remand the case to the impartial hearing board for consideration of further evidence related to the issue of when the plaintiff and his family returned to Farmington. He does not, however, analyze this claim within his main brief to this court. “While [w]e are aware that [i]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro se litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro se party ... we are also aware that [although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154, 157, 31 A.3d 804 (2011), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 905, 38 A.3d 1201 (2012). “Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cambridge Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Sakon, 132 Conn. App. 370, 372 n.2, 31 A.3d 849 (2011), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 904, 38 A.3d 1202 (2012). The only analysis of this claim is within the plaintiffs reply brief to this court. “[C]laims ... are unreviewable when raised for the first time in a reply brief. . . . One rationale for that maxim is the fact that [arguments first presented in a reply brief impair the opposing party’s opportunity to reply in writing.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McDonough v. Forrest, 129 Conn. App. 851, 856 n.3, 21 A.3d 546, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 924, 28 A.3d 340 (2011). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim.

       General Statutes § 10-186 (b) (2) provides in relevant part: “The State Board of Education shall, on receipt of a written request for a hearing made in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, establish an impartial hearing board of one or more persons to hold a public hearing in the local or regional school district in which the cause of the complaint arises. . . . The hearing board may render a determination of actual residence of any child, emancipated minor or pupil eighteen years of age or older where residency is at issue.”

       See footnote 3 of this opinion.

       See footnote 3 of this opinion.

       See footnote 3 of this opinion.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: DiPENTIMA, C. J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STANLEY KOSIOREK, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF STANISLAW KOSIOREK) v. JACEK I. SMIGELSKI
    (AC 32919)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.

      Argued May 16
    officially released October 23, 2012

      Jacek I. Smigelski, pro se, the appellant-cross appel-lee (defendant).

      William J. Sweeney, Jr., for the appellee-cross appellant (plaintiff).

      John A. Barbieri, for the cross appellee (defendant 122 Main Street Associates, LLC).
   Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J.

The self-represented defendant, Jacek I. Smigelski, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Stanley Kosiorek, executor of the estate of Stanislaw Kosiorek, following a jury trial. On appeal, the defendant presents a number of overlapping claims of error that stem primarily from the court’s denial of his motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict. The plaintiff filed a cross appeal from the judgment of the court directing a verdict in favor of 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, formerly known as 122 Main Street, LLC (122 Main Street), with respect to the counts of the plaintiffs revised complaint alleging common-law and statutory fraudulent conveyance. We are not persuaded by any of the issues raised in the defendant’s appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court. With respect to the cross appeal, we agree in part with the plaintiff and reverse a portion of the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In May or June, 2004, Stanley Kosiorek spoke with attorney John Matulis regarding a probate matter. His father, Stanislaw Kosiorek, had died and the family home located on Terra Road in Plainville had been transferred to the decedent’s second wife, Bronislawa Kosiorek. The transfer of the property was completed approximately six weeks before his death. Stanley Kosi-orek was appointed executor of the decedent’s estate on July 12, 2004. Matulis obtained an order from the Probate Court granting the children of Stanislaw Kosi-orek authority to assume responsibility for the body and to make arrangements for a wake, funeral and interment. Next, Matulis began investigating whether the Terra Road property had been transferred validly to Bronislawa Kosiorek. Matulis commenced an action on behalf of Stanley Kosiorek and his siblings against Bronislawa Kosiorek seeking (1) a judgment declaring the deed transferring ownership of the property invalid and (2) a declaratory judgment that the marriage between Stanislaw Kosiorek and Bronislawa Kosiorek was invalid.

The case went to a judicial pretrial, and a court annexed mediation occurred in late 2005 or early 2006. Stanley Kosiorek and his siblings offered $25,000 in exchange for a return of the house to the estate. This offer was rejected, as Bronislawa Kosiorek sought to receive $45,000. On March 21, 2006, Matulis sent a letter to Stanley Kosiorek and his siblings detailing the options following the unsuccessful mediation. In this letter, Matulis stated that Bronislawa Kosiorek would not accept less than $45,000 in exchange for transferring the house to the estate. Ultimately, Matulis made the following recommendation: “It is my belief that if this matter could be settled along the lines recommended by Judge [Richard A.] Robinson and [Bronislawa Kosi-orek] be paid no more than $40,000.00 that the settlement would be far and away in the best interests of the family.”

A trial was scheduled to begin in early August, 2006. At some point prior to the trial date, Matulis learned that Stanley Kosiorek had filed an application with the Probate Court seeking permission to sell the house to his son. Matulis informed him that the estate could not sell an asset that it did not own. A few days later, Stanley Kosiorek informed Matulis that he and his siblings had decided to hire a different lawyer. Matulis filed a motion to withdraw his appearance and sent a final bill. For the work completed over a two year time period, Matulis’ law firm was paid $7732 by the children of the decedent.

In June, 2006, Stanley Kosiorek hired the defendant to represent the estate in the action against Bronislawa Kosiorek. Stanley Kosiorek signed afee agreement both in his individual capacity and as executor of the decedent’s estate. The fee agreement consisted of two pages; however, Stanley Kosiorek was shown only the second page that he had signed. The first page of the agreement set forth the fee arrangement as follows: “It is agreed that the fee for legal services rendered by [the defendant] will be based on an hourly charge of $225.00 per hour or it will be contingent upon recovery of benefits and shall be ONE-THIRD of the gross judgment or settlement, [whichever] amount is greater.” Stanley Kosiorek, not having seen the paragraph, believed that the defendant’s fee would be calculated on a hourly basis of $250 per hour. The defendant was paid a retainer of $5000. Stanley Kosiorek obtained the file from Matulis, provided it to the defendant, and informed the defendant of details regarding the unsuccessful mediation.

Prior to trial, the estate and Bronislawa Kosiorek settled the case. In exchange for $35,000, Bronislawa Kosiorek agreed to quitclaim the deed to the property to the estate. The parties also exchanged mutual general releases.

After the estate became the owner of the property, it entered into a sales agreement with Stanley Kosior-ek’s son and daughter-in-law. Although they agreed to purchase the property for $170,000, the son and daughter-in-law were unable to obtain a mortgage. To complete this transaction, the estate raised the price of the property to $212,500. Stanley Kosiorek and his siblings agreed to make a gift of equity of $42,500 to facilitate the sale of the property. Following approval of this transaction by the Probate Court, the defendant prepared a deed to transfer the property in exchange for $212,500. At the closing on December 21, 2006, the estate received $155,300.82.

Five days later, Stanley Kosiorek went to the defendant’s office and received a disbursement letter. The defendant calculated his fees as follows: the value of the property was $257,000 and therefore his fee was one third of that amount, or $85,665.81, plus a probate fee of $1004.99, less a courtesy discount of $14,832.48 and less a retainer of $5000 for a total due to the defendant of $66,838.32. This amount was subtracted from the net proceeds of the closing and paid to the defendant, thus leaving the estate with $88,462.50. Stanley Kosiorek had expected to receive $155,300 and to pay the defendant at a later date.

Stanley Kosiorek left the defendant’s office “[speechless and stunned . . . .’’He spoke with Kazimierz Kosi-orek and then scheduled a meeting with the defendant. The defendant failed to appear at this meeting, and Stanley Kosiorek obtained new counsel. In a letter sent to the defendant, the new attorney, William J. Sweeney, Jr., indicated that he been retained to represent the estate with respect to the lawsuit against Bronislawa Kosiorek as well as any and all matters in the Probate Court. The letter requested the defendant to turn the file over, and advised that there would be claims against the defendant for legal and ethical breaches, namely, settling the lawsuit of the estate without Probate Court approval and charging an unreasonable fee. Finally, the letter requested that the fees retained by the defendant be placed in escrow.

Stanley Kosiorek filed an inventory and accounting in the Probate Court on behalf of the estate. In the administrative expenses, he listed the defendant’s fee of $70,833.33. In January, 2007, a hearing was held regarding the defendant’s fee. In May, 2007, the Probate Court issued a decree disallowing the defendant’s fee, finding it excessive and unreasonable. The Probate Court determined that the defendant was entitled to a fee of $15,000, plus $1000 for expenses. Accordingly, the Probate Court ordered the defendant to restore $54,833.33 to the estate. No appeal was taken from the decree of the Probate Court.

On July 6, 2007, the plaintiff filed an application for aprejudgment remedy to secure $54,833.33 of the defendant’s assets to prevent him from fraudulently transferring or disposing of assets. The court granted this application on December 20, 2007. On December 28, 2007, the plaintiff commenced this action. On September 17, 2008, the plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102, moved to cite in 122 Main Street as a party defendant. The court granted this motion on December 12, 2008.

On October 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a revised nine count complaint. Specifically, it alleged the following causes of action against the defendant: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (6) civil conversion in violation of General Statutes § 52-564. The plaintiff also alleged two counts against 122 Main Street: (1) fraudulent conveyance and (2) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. The defendant responded with an answer, special defenses and a counterclaim. With respect to the two counts directed against it, 122 Main Street filed an answer.

Both the defendant and 122 Main Street filed motions for a directed verdict. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to present proof required to prevail on the two causes of action relating to 122 Main Street and therefore directed the verdict in its favor. The court reserved judgment on the defendant’s motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to all five counts. Additionally, the jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages and attorney’s fees under the CUTPA count, and 10 percent interest as to the civil conversion count. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $54,833.33. In accordance with this verdict, the court calculated the interest award to be $20,754.74 for a subtotal of $75,587.74. The court then trebled that amount for a total damages award of $226,762.20.

The plaintiff then filed a motion for punitive damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to the CUTPA count. The court declined to award any punitive damages. The court did, however, award attorney’s fees in the amount of $68,011.50 and costs in the amount of $3684.59, for a total of $71,696.09. The total amount awarded to the plaintiff was $298,458.29. These appeals followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

DEFENDANT’S APPEAL

The defendant first claims that the court improperly determined that Stanley Kosiorek, individually, was not a necessary and indispensable party. Specifically, he argues that because his fee was earned after the death of Stanislaw Kosiorek, Stanley Kosiorek personally incurred the debt caused by the defendant’s disallowed legal fees. In other words, according to the defendant, Stanley Kosiorek “must personally reimburse the estate for the disallowed fee or litigate the issue of the fees with the defendant, which he did not do.” We are not persuaded.

On April 29, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to implead Stanley Kosiorek, individually, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-11. The court denied this motion without comment on May 20, 2009. At no point did the defendant file a motion to strike pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39. “[T]he failure to join an indispensable party is not a [subject matter] jurisdictional defect. . . . Except as provided in Sections 10-44 and 11-3 no action shall be defeated by the nonjoinder ... of parties. . . . Practice Book § 9-19. Additionally, [a]s set forth in Section 10-39, the exclusive remedy for nonjoinder of parties is by motion to strike.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bauer v. Souto, 277 Conn. 829, 838-39, 896 A.2d 90 (2006); see also George v. St. Ann’s Church, 182 Conn. 322, 325, 438 A.2d 97 (1980) (filing of motion to strike is exclusive remedy to nonjoinder of indispensable parties).

This court has stated that “when an action cannot be disposed of properly on its merits because of the absence of an indispensable party, the defect is not waivable and can be addressed by this court even if not timely raised by the parties. See W. G. Glenney Co. v. Bianco, 27 Conn. App. 199, 202-203, 604 A.2d 1345 (1992); Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 305, 580 A.2d 1212, cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803, 584 A.2d 471 (1990). Parties are considered indispensable when they not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such condition that its final [disposition] may be . . . inconsistent with equity and good conscience. . . . Indispensable parties must be joined because due process principles make it essential that [such parties] be given notice and an opportunity to protect [their] interests by making [them] a party to the [action]. . . . Necessary parties, in contrast, are those [p]ersons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it. . . . [B]ut if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Demarest v. Fire Dept., 76 Conn. App. 24, 28, 817 A.2d 1285 (2003).

The defendant appears to argue that Stanley Kosi-orek, individually, is liable to the estate for the defendant’s fee that the Probate Court disallowed. Aside from general citations to a Connecticut probate treatise, the defendant fails to demonstrate why Stanley Kosiorek, individually, is a necessary and indispensable party to this litigation. Stanley Kosiorek, acting in his capacity as executor of the estate, sued the defendant to recover the legal fees determined to be excessive by the Probate Court. It is axiomatic that probate fiduciaries may commence legal action in their representative capacity. See R. Folsom, Connecticut Estates Practice Series: Probate Litigation in Connecticut 2d (2011) § 4:1. In other words, Stanley Kosiorek, acting on behalf of the estate, properly filed suit against the individual responsible to the estate for missing funds. If, hypothetically, Stanley Kosi-orek were to breach his duty to the estate and withhold the funds recovered by this lawsuit, then the estate would have a claim against Stanley Kosiorek, individually. On the facts of this record, however, we are not persuaded by the defendant’s claim that Stanley Kosi-orek, individually, was a necessary and indispensable party to this action.

n

The defendant next claims that the court improperly denied his motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, he argues that (1) expert testimony was required as to the issue of whether the legal fees charged were reasonable, (2) the plaintiff failed to prove damages, (3) there was no evidence to support the CUTPA count and (4) there was no evidence to support the civil conversion count. We are not persuaded.

“Our standard of review of the court’s refusal to grant [motions for directed verdicts and to set aside verdicts] requires us to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, according particular weight to the congruence of the judgment of the trial judge and the jury, who saw the witnesses and heard their testimony. . . . The verdict will be set aside and judgment directed only if we find that the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached [its] conclusion. . '. . While it is the jury’s right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven ... it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation. ... If the evidence would not reasonably support a finding of the particular issue, the trial court has a duty not to submit it to the jury. . . . Our standard of review, where the trial court’s action on a motion to set aside a verdict is challenged, is whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion. . . . The decision to set aside a verdict is a matter within the broad legal discretion of the trial court and it will not be disturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sutcliffe v. FleetBoston Financial Corp., 108 Conn. App. 799, 811, 950 A.2d 544 (2008).

A

The defendant first argues that expert testimony was required on the issue of his legal fees. Specifically, he contends that the issue of the fees charged in this case was outside the common knowledge of the members of the jury, and, therefore, expert testimony was required. The plaintiff counters that the court properly determined that, under the circumstances of this case, expert testimony was not required. We agree with the plaintiff.

Underlying the various causes of actions set forth in the revised complaint was the need for the jury to determine whether the legal fees charged to the estate were reasonable. Because this determination is beyond the experience of an. ordinary fact finder, expert testimony generally is required. Celentano v. Grudberg, 76 Conn. App. 119, 126, 818 A.2d 841, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904, 823 A.2d 1220 (2003). “The general rule does not, however, apply to cases where there is present such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect is clear even to a layperson.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc., 84 Conn. App. 88, 95, 851 A.2d 1242, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 918, 859 A.2d 570 (2004). We expressly have held that “the need to present expert testimony in collection cases is best decided, not by a bright line rule, but by careful examination of the circumstances of each particular case.” Id., 96.

We agree with the trial court that expert testimony was not required in this case. The jury heard testimony from Matulis, who had worked on the dispute between the estate and Bronislawa Kosiorek for over two years, had negotiated a settlement that was $10,000 more than the one eventually achieved by the defendant and had charged the estate approximately $7700. The jury also was presented with the decree of the Probate Court, which determined that the defendant’s fee was unreasonable. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that the plaintiff was not required to present expert testimony with respect to the issue of the reasonableness of the defendant’s fees for legal services.

B

The defendant next argues that the plaintiff failed to prove damages. Although the defendant’s claims are not entirely clear from his brief, he appears to claim that (1) the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony as to the amount of damages and the duty of attorneys to charge only reasonable fees, (2) the plaintiff should have been estopped from claiming damages after having received the benefits of the defendant’s legal services and (3) because the plaintiff acknowledged a valid contract, the terms of the contract, including the issue of legal fees, must also be valid. We are not persuaded.

As we have noted, the plaintiff introduced evidence, via the Probate Court decree, that a reasonable fee in the present case was $15,000, plus $1000 for expenses. The defendant had paid himself a fee of $65,833.33. The defendant had been paid a $5000 retainer, and, therefore, the estate was damaged in the amount of $54,833.33. Additionally, we note that “[a] fee agreement is not self-executing. It does not and cannot authorize an attorney to violate his fiduciary obligation to his client.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, 124 Conn. App. 81, 89, 4 A.3d 336 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 906, 12 A.3d 1004, cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 101, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011). In other words, a valid contract would not relieve the defendant of his obligations to the estate. Therefore, his estoppel argument and his claim regarding the validity of the fees based on the existence of a contract must fail.

C

The defendant next argues that there was no evidence to support the CUTPA count. Specifically, he contends again that expert testimony was required to establish the unreasonable nature of his fees. We need not revisit this contention. The defendant also maintains that there were no allegations or proof of any misleading or unfair conduct. We are not persuaded.

“CUTPA provides in relevant part that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. General Statutes § 42-110b (a). Connecticut courts, when determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, will consider (1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen). . . . Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. . . . Whether a practice is unfair and thus violates CUTPA is an issue of fact. . . . The facts found must be viewed within the context of the totality of circumstances which are uniquely available to the trial court. . . . Additionally, our Supreme Court has stated that [a]ll three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ulster Savings Bank v. 28 Brynwood Lane, Ltd., 134 Conn. App. 699, 714-15, 41 A.3d 1077 (2012).

We now examine the scope of CUTPA in the context of the practice of law. In Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 520-21, 461 A.2d 938 (1983), our Supreme Court concluded that not all aspects relating to the conduct of the profession of law were excluded from the purview of CUTPA. More recently, we explained: “In general, CUTPA applies to attorney conduct, but only as to the entrepreneurial aspects of legal practice. . . . Professional negligence, or malpractice, does not fall under CUTPA.” (Citation omitted.) Anderson v. Schoenhorn, 89 Conn. App. 666, 674, 874 A.2d 798 (2005); see also Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 34-35, 699 A.2d 964 (1997).

In the present case, the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant failed to provide Stanley Kosiorek with the entire fee agreement or to explain the nature of the contingency agreement at the time it was executed. Additionally, there was evidence that the defendant had not kept accurate time records, paid himself an unreasonable fee and refused to return the disallowed fee to the estate. “A party seeking to recover damages under CUTPA must meet two threshold requirements. First, he must establish that the conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. . . . Second, he must present evidence providing the court with a basis for a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Anderson v. Schoenhorn, supra, 89 Conn. App. 675. The plaintiff presented the required evidence, and this evidence related to the entrepreneurial aspects of legal practice. Accordingly, the court properly submitted the CUTPA claim for the jury’s consideration.

D

The defendant next argues that there was no evidence to support the statutory theft count. Specifically, he argues that the plaintiff “failed to prove by competent evidence that the fee as retained by the defendant is in fact the property of the [estate] or that the defendant had no right to retain such a fee.” We are not persuaded.

“The elements that the plaintiffs must prove to obtain treble damages under the civil theft statute, § 52-564, are the same as the elements required to prove larceny, pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-119. ... A person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner. ... It must be shown that (1) there was an intent to do the act complained of, (2) the act was done wrongfully, and (3) the act was committed against an owner. . . . The essential cause of action is a wrongful exercise of dominion over personal property of another.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Delisa, 101 Conn. App. 605, 619-20, 923 A.2d 760, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 908, 928 A.2d 540 (2007); see also Rana v. Terdjanian, 136 Conn. App. 99, 113-14, 46 A.3d 175, cert. denied, 305 Conn. 926, 47 A.3d 886 (2012); M. Taylor & D. Krisch, Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action (2009) p. 106.

In the present case, the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant wrongfully withheld $54,833.33. The estate is the owner of that money. Moreover, despite the defendant’s assertion, the manner in which he assessed this fee was not valid; it was an unreasonable fee as determined by the Probate Court and later by the office of the disciplinary counsel. There was ample evidence permitting the jury to reasonably and legally reach its conclusion regarding the statutory theft count, and, therefore, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Ill

The defendant next claims that the court improperly permitted the probate judge to testify as an expert witness. Specifically, he argues that “[a]llowing testimony of the judge here was error because it was clearly a back door attempt to provide an ‘expert opinion’ despite plaintiffs counsel’s disingenuous statements to the contrary.” He also contends that he was deprived of his right to cross-examination because he was not permitted to ask questions regarding the process of writing the judge’s decision.

The following additional facts are necessary for our discussion. The defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the Honorable Heidi Famig-lietti, judge of probate for the district of Plainville. Counsel for the plaintiff countered that Judge Famiglietti was there to testify as a fact witness, with respect to statements made by the defendant, as well as to her recollection of the probate proceedings. The court denied the defendant’s motion without prejudice.

During her testimony, Judge Famiglietti stated that she wrote a memorandum of decision in conjunction with her decree as to the final accounting filed by Stanley Kosiorek. In this decree, Judge Famiglietti found that “the attorney fees [for the defendant] are excessive and unreasonable. A fee to [the defendant] of $15,000.00 plus $1,000.00 for reimbursement of costs is reasonable.” During cross-examination, the defendant asked whether Judge Famiglietti had any assistance in writing her decision. The court sustained the plaintiffs objection, and permitted the defendant to make an offer of proof outside of the presence of the jury.

The defendant set forth the following: “I was at the Probate Court maybe a year or two ago, inspected the file, the entire file, and found several drafts of the memorandum of decision marked up and with the facts— facts as to [the] Probate Court administrator’s office in Hartford.” The trial court then determined that the question at issue, stated succinctly, was whether Judge Famiglietti had any assistance in writing her decision. The court sustained the objection and stated that “going behind a judge’s decision . . . is just like the A number one thing that people are not allowed to do. I mean, that’s going into the thought process of a judge in issuing a decision, and that is not something that is allowed ever, ever.”

We have carefully reviewed the testimony of Judge Famiglietti. Her testimony was limited to that of a fact witness. She was not asked to provide expert testimony, nor did she offer any. This claim, therefore, is without merit.

As to the defendant’s claim that the court improperly limited his cross-examination, we find it meritless. “The trial court has wide discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence and the scope of cross-examination. Every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. . . . Furthermore, [t]o establish an abuse of discretion, [the defendant] must show that the restrictions imposed upon [the] cross-examination were clearly prejudicial. ... In order to establish reversible error on an eviden-tiary impropriety, however, the defendant must prove both an abuse of discretion and a harm that resulted from such abuse.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Florian v. Lenge, 91 Conn. App. 268, 286, 880 A.2d 985 (2005). Here, in its ruling, the trial court properly considered the sanctity of the judicial deliberative process. The defendant has failed to establish that the preclusion of testimony as to Judge Famiglietti’s decision-making process was an abuse of discretion.

IV

The defendant next claims that the court improperly instructed the jury. Specifically, he argues that the court “improperly failed to adapt the jury charge to the issues, pleadings and evidence introduced at trial. The jury instructions are wrong in toto.” Because of the inadequacy of his analysis of this audaciously expansive claim and the evidence before the jury, we are not convinced.

“Our standard of review concerning claims of instructional error is well settled. [J]ury instructions must be read as a whole and . . . are not to be judged in artificial isolation from the overall charge. . . . The whole charge must be considered from the standpoint of its effect on the jurors in guiding them to a proper verdict .... The trial court must adapt its instructions to the issues raised in order to give the jury reasonable guidance in reaching a verdict and not mislead them. . . . Claims of error addressed to the [jury] charge are tested by the pleadings and by the evidence .... The court has a duty to submit to the jury no issue upon which the evidence would not reasonably support a finding. . . . The court should, however, submit to the jury all issues as outlined by the pleadings and as reasonably supported by the evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rua v. Kirby, 125 Conn. App. 514, 516-17, 8 A.3d 1123 (2010).

In his brief, the defendant sets forth certain general principles regarding jury instructions. He then argues that the court’s instructions failed to guide the jury because the instructions failed to apply the general rules of law to the particular facts of this case. The defendant, however, has not provided any citation or legal analysis to support this contention. “We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dreambuilders Construction, LLC v. Diamond, 121 Conn. App. 554, 564, 997 A.2d 553 (2010); see also Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570, 580, 989 A.2d 606 (“mere conclusory assertions regarding a claim with no mention of relevant authority and minimal or no citations from the record will not suffice” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922, 991 A.2d 564 (2010).

The defendant also argues that the court improperly “instructed the jury on the rules of professional conduct governing determination of reasonableness of attorney’s fees.” Specifically, he maintains that there was no evidence for the jury to determine whether his fee was reasonable. As previously stated, this claim must fail. The trial court was required to give preclusive effect to the decree of the Probate Court. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, supra, 124 Conn. App. 97; see also Gaynor v. Payne, 261 Conn. 585, 598, 804 A.2d 170 (2002). Additionally, there was evidence for the jury to compare the work and fees charged by the defendant and Matulis. For these reasons, we conclude that the defendant’s challenge to the instructions given to the jury must fail.

V

The defendant’s final claim is that the court improperly precluded certain testimony from his expert witness, Louis Evjen, a licensed real estate appraiser. He appears to argue that the court improperly prevented Evjen from offering testimony about a second appraisal he had performed in September, 2006, and that the court improperly asked Evjen about the difference between a comparative market analysis and an appraisal.

The following facts are necessary for our discussion. On March 15, 2010, the defendant disclosed Evjen as an expert as required by Practice Book § 13-4 (b) (1). The defendant indicated that Evjen would offer his expert opinion that the fair market value of the property was $248,000, as of August 14,2006. The court permitted Evjen to provide his expert opinion regarding the value of the property.

The defendant then attempted to have Evjen testify about an appraisal completed in September, 2006, that Usted the value of the property as $254,000. Counsel for the plaintiff objected on the ground that the appraisal was not disclosed pursuant to Practice Book § 13-4, and, therefore, it should not be admitted into evidence. The court ruled that this area had not been disclosed properly, and determined that Evjen was not permitted to testify about the September, 2006 appraisal.

After the parties had completed their examination of Evjen, the court asked him about the difference between a comparative market analysis and an appraisal. Evjen responded: “A comparative market analysis usually takes into consideration a property on the market. That’s typical for a real estate — real estate agent to give you a market analysis, where an appraiser really is only dealing with the history or the sales from that neighborhood unless there’s extenuating circumstances.” He also explained that banks generally did not rely on comparative market analysis. Neither party had any follow up questions for Eyjen following his coUoquy with the court.

We begin by setting forth our standard of review. “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed. ... In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . Even if a court has acted improperly in connection with the introduction of evidence, reversal of a judgment is not necessarily mandated because there must not only be an evidentiary [impropriety], there also must be harm.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Szczycinska v. Acampora, 125 Conn. App. 474, 478, 10 A.3d 531 (2010).

“Practice Book § 13-4 plainly requires a plaintiff to disclose: (1) the name of the expert witness; (2) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (3) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (4) a summary of the ground for each opinion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241, 251, 9 A.3d 364 (2010). The defendant failed to disclose that Evjen would offer expert testimony regarding the September, 2006 appraisal. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in precluding testimony regarding that subject.

With respect to the defendant’s claim that the court improperly questioned Evjen regarding the difference between a comparative market analysis and an appraisal, we decline to review this unpreserved eviden-tiary claim. The defendant failed to object to the court’s questions. “It is well settled that this court will not entertain claims of evidentiary error that were not distinctly raised before the trial court.” Wilderman v. Powers, 110 Conn. App. 819, 828, 956 A.2d 613 (2008).

VI

PLAINTIFFS CROSS APPEAL

In his cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly directed the verdict in favor of 122 Main Street. Specifically, he argues that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the transfer of the defendant’s interest in 122 Main Street was done with the fraudulent intent to deprive the estate with access to his assets. We agree that the court improperly directed the verdict with respect to the statutory claim of fraudulent conveyance, but disagree with respect to the common-law claim.

The following facts are necessary for the resolution of this issue. The plaintiffs revised complaint set forth two causes of action against 122 Main Street. Specifically, in count seven, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant fraudulently conveyed his interest in 122 Main Street to Julius J. Janusz and John T. Glowka. On December 20, 2007, the court entered a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $54,833.33 against the defendant. At that time, he was the sole owner of 122 Main Street, LLC. A few weeks later, the defendant changed the name of the entity to 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, and diluted his interest by adding Janusz and Glowka as members. The plaintiff alleged that this transfer was done without fair and sufficient consideration, and was done with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud the plaintiff, to protect and preserve the defendant’s interest in the property and to prevent and hinder the plaintiff from collecting and receiving the proceeds due to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s actions. In count eight of the revised complaint, the plaintiff asserted these allegations in the context of a violation of § 52-552e. For count seven, the plaintiff sought to impose a constructive trust on $54,833.33, avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim, an accounting of the money converted, and such other equitable relief as needed. For count eight, the plaintiff sought money damages, avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim, an attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred and an injunction against further disposition of the asset transferred.

The defendant testified during cross-examination that 122 Main Street, LLC, was a single member limited liability company from July 18,2001, until January, 2008. The defendant also testified that a prejudgment remedy was entered against him in the amount of $54,833.33 on December 20, 2007. At this time the defendant had lost the fees he had paid himself from the estate in a “bad deal,” and 122 Main Street was his major asset. He then transferred two thirds of his interest to Janusz and Glowka. Both were tenants of 122 Main Street, and there was no evidence that they were aware of the prejudgment remedy entered against the defendant. Each paid the defendant $25,000 in cash and gave him a note for $25,000 in exchange of a one-third share.

On October 8, 2010, 122 Main Street filed a motion for a directed verdict, and the court heard from the parties on October 12, 2010. It argued that the allegations in the complaint solely were against the defendant. It farther claimed that Janusz and Glowka paid reasonable value for their interest. The plaintiff countered that 122 Main Street had failed to satisfy its burden to prove that a reasonable value had been paid. The plaintiff farther argued that there existed questions of fact as to whether the transfer was made with a fraudulent intent and that the matter therefore should go to the jury to decide.

On October 13, 2010, the court granted the motion for a directed verdict filed by 122 Main Street. The court “determined that the plaintiff has failed to present the proof that the law requires to prevail on the two claims against [122 Main Street]. There was no evidence presented as to the fair market value of the building, so any determination by the jury that the consideration was deficient would be pure speculation.”

We begin with our standard of review. “Whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict is a question of law, over which our review is plenary. . . . Directed verdicts are not favored. ... A trial court should direct a verdict only when a jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion. ... In reviewing the trial court’s decision to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant we must consider the evidence in the fight most favorable to the plaintiff. . . . Although it is the jury’s right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven ... it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation. ... A directed verdict is justified if . . . the evidence is so weak that it would be proper for the court to set aside a verdict rendered for the other party. . . . This court has emphasized two additional points with respect to motions to set aside a verdict that are equally applicable to motions for a directed verdict: First, the plaintiff in a civil matter is not required to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt; a mere preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. Second, the well established standards compelling great deference to the historical function of the jury find their roots in the constitutional right to a trial by jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Demiraj v. Uljaj, 137 Conn. App. 800, 804-805, 50 A.3d 333 (2012).

“A party alleging a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under the common law bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conveyance was made without substantial consideration and rendered the transferor unable to meet his obligations or (2) that the conveyance was made with a fraudulent intent in which the grantee participated. . . . The party seeking to set aside a fraudulent conveyance need not satisfy both of these tests. . . . These are also elements of an action brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-552e (a) and 52-552f (a).” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Cooperman, 289 Conn. 383, 394-95, 957 A.2d 836 (2008); see also Wieselmanv. Hoeniger, 103 Conn. App. 591, 596, 930 A.2d 768, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 930, 934 A.2d 245 (2007); Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 140-41, 799 A.2d 298, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911, 806 A.2d 49 (2002); see generally M. Taylor & D. Krisch, supra, pp. 20, 112-13.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the defendant improperly transferred two thirds of 122 Main Street “in an effort to dilute his biggest asset.” The plaintiff contends that the court improperly directed the verdict because the jury reasonably and legally could have concluded that this transfer was done with fraudulent intent. We agree with the plaintiff with respect to the statutory claim of a fraudulent transfer.

In this case, the defendant was the transferor, Janusz and Glowka were the transferees, and the interest in 122 Main Street, initially owned 100 percent by the defendant, was the subject of the conveyance. After reviewing the record, we see no evidence that Janusz and Glowka participated in a fraudulent conveyance. While there was evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant fraudulently conveyed his two-thirds interest to Janusz and Glowka, we have not found, nor has the plaintiff referred to, any evidence that the two grantees participated in the defendant’s scheme. See General Statutes § 52-552e (b) (1), (4) and (10). Janusz testified that he and Glowka, after becoming aware of the defendant’s financial difficulties in 2006, approached him about becoming co-owners of the building. After reaching a purchase price agreeable to all three, the sale was completed. The evidence showed that Janusz was not aware of any claims against the defendant from the estate, and the defendant did not tell him about the prejudgment remedy entered against him.

At this point, we address the differences between the common-law cause of action for a fraudulent transfer and the statutory action under § 52-552e. In Robinson v. Coughlin, 266 Conn. 1, 9, 830 A.2d 1114 (2003), our Supreme Court noted that although the statute is largely an adoption and clarification of the standards of the common law of fraudulent conveyances, it is not a wholesale codification. See also Hamrah v. Emerson, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-05-4012872 (August 20, 2009) (noting subtle differences in remedies between statutory and common-law actions).

In Wieselman v. Hoeniger, supra, 103 Conn. App. 591, this court identified a distinction between the statutory and common-law cause of action for fraudulent conveyance significant to this appeal. “[Section] 52-552e (a) provides in relevant part that [a] transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor ... if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor .... Prior to the adoption of the act, the plaintiff had to prove (1) that the transferor had intent to defraud the creditor and (2) that the transferee shared in the transferor’s fraudulent intent. . . . The plain language in § 52-552e addresses the fraudulent intent of the debtor and makes no mention of the fraudulent intent of the transferee.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 598-99.

Guided by Wieselman, we conclude that the court properly granted the motion for a directed verdict with respect to the common-law cause of action for fraudulent transfer. There was no evidence that the conveyance was done for less than fair and reasonable consideration. Likewise, there was no evidence that either Janusz or Glowka, the transferees, actively participated in a fraudulent conveyance. The jury could not have reasonably or legally reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to his claim of common-law fraudulent conveyance. The court, therefore, properly granted the motion for a directed verdict. With respect to the claim under § 52-552e, however, there is no requirement for a fraudulent intent with respect to the transferees. See id., 599. Because there was evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant transferred his interest with an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud the estate, a creditor of the defendant, we conclude that the court improperly granted the motion for a directed verdict with respect to the plaintiffs § 52-552e claim.

The judgment is reversed only as to the granting of 122 Main Street’s motion for a directed verdict as to the count of the revised complaint alleging a violation of § 52-552e and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       According to the judicial branch website, the defendant was admitted to practice law in Connecticut on November 20, 1986. Effective March 3, 2011, the defendant was suspended from the practice of law for a period of fifteen months. See generally Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, 124 Conn. App. 81, 4 A.3d 336 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 906, 12 A.3d 1004, cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 101, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011).

       Prior to trial, the trial court granted a motion by the plaintiff to cite in 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, as a defendant. For clarity, we refer in this opinion to Smigelski as the defendant and to 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, as 122 Main Street.

       Stanislaw Kosiorek died on May 16, 2004.

       Stanley Kosiorek testified that no one in his family knew Bronislawa Kosiorek or that his father had been married for a second time.

       Stanley Kosiorek was a plaintiff in both his individual capacity and as executor of the decedent’s estate. The other plaintiffs were Kazimierz Kosiorek, John Kosiorek, Diane Reynolds, Helen Kosiorek, Teresa Caudillo, Krystyna Jacobson and Stanislaw Wisniewski.

       Kazimierz Kosiorek issued a check for $5000 to pay the defendant’s retainer because, at that time, the estate had no money.

       Kazimierz Kosiorek issued a check for $35,000 to the estate to fund the payment to Bronislawa Kosiorek.

       This amount came from a comparative market analysis prepared for Bronislawa Kosiorek.

       During these proceedings, the defendant provided the estate with an amended disbursement letter stating that he was entitled to one third of the $212,500, rather than the $257,000 he had initially used to calculate his fee. The defendant, however, correspondingly reduced his “courtesy discount” to $999.30.

       Practice Book § 10-11 (a) provides in relevant part: “A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third party plaintiff to serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to such defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him or her. ...”

       Practice Book § 10-39 provides in relevant part: “(a) Whenever any party wishes to contest ... (3) the legal sufficiency of any such complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint, or any count thereof, because of the absence of any necessary party or, pursuant to Section 17-56 (b), the failure to join or give notice to any interested person . . . that party may do so by filing a motion to strike the contested pleading or part thereof.
      “(b) A motion to strike on the ground of the nonjoinder of a necessary party or noncompliance with Section 17-56 (b) must give the name and residence of the missing party or interested person or such information as the moving party has as to the identity and residence of the missing party or interested person and must state the missing party’s or interested person’s interest in the cause of action.”

       As a result of our conclusions regarding these issues, we need not address the defendant’s claims regarding the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of good faith and fair dealing counts. Cf. Green v. Yankee Gas Corp., 120 Conn. App. 804, 805, 993 A.2d 982 (2010) (“[t]he logic underlying the [general verdict] rule is that [w]here there was an error free path available to the jury to reach its verdict, and no special interrogatories were submitted showing which road the jury went down, any judgment rendered on such a verdict must be affirmed” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Sturgeon v. Sturgeon, 114 Conn. App. 682, 687, 971 A.2d 691 (same), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 903, 975 A.2d 1278 (2009). In this case, the award of damages contained in the judgment is founded on the jury’s conclusions with respect to the CUTPA and civil conversion counts. Because we conclude that there is no error with respect to these counts, we need not consider the defendant’s claims with respect to the other causes of action set forth in the operative complaint.

       We employ the plenary standard of review with respect to this claim. See St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc., 84 Conn. App. 88, 92, 851 A.2d 1242, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 918, 859 A.2d 570 (2004); see also Ackerly & Brown, LLP v. Smithies, 109 Conn. App. 584, 587-88, 952 A.2d 110 (2008) (issue of whether expert testimony required reviewed under plenary standard).

       In order to assess the reasonableness of fees, several factors must be considered, including the time and labor involved, the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented and the customary fee charged in the locality. St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc., 84 Conn. App. 88, 93, 851 A.2d 1242, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 918, 859 A.2d 570 (2004).

       In Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, 124 Conn. App. 81, 97, 4 A.3d 336 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 906, 12 A.3d 1004, cert. denied, U.S.
      , 132 S. Ct. 101, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011), we noted that “in Gaynor v. Payne, 261 Conn. 585, 598, 804 A.2d 170 (2002), our Supreme Court held that courts of general jurisdiction must give preclusive effect to Probate Court decrees adjudicating the validity of an executor’s accounting for his performance of his duties to the estate. Accordingly, in this case, the court was required to take into account the Plainville Probate Court’s adjudication of the fee to which the defendant was entitled for his services for Stanley Kosiorek as executor of the Kosiorek estate.”
      We also noted that “[i]t is axiomatic that, to collect a contingent fee for services rendered, an attorney must establish a nexus between fee and service. In this case, there is no such nexus between the defendant’s services and the market value, however calculated, of the Kosiorek estate. ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, supra, 124 Conn. App. 90.

       The defendant also argues that the court improperly awarded punitive damages under CUTPA. The record does not support this claim. The court stated that “the conduct by the defendant is offensive and would qualify for an award of punitive damages. . . . Absent the jury’s finding on the count of civil conversion, which provides for treble damages as well as the plaintiffs entitlement to attorney’s fees under CUTPA, the court would surely make a specific award of punitive damages. However, in light of the reasons set forth, the court will not award any further damages for the

        CUTPA claim.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we need not review this claim because the court, in fact, did not award punitive damages pursuant to CUTPA.

       General Statutes § 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.”

       See Disciplinary Counsel v. Smigelski, supra, 124 Conn. App. 81.

       See, e.g., In the Matter of Enforcement of a Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162, 172-73, 972 N.E.2d 1022 (2012) (“[T]he need to protect judicial deliberations has been implicit in our view of the nature of the judicial enterprise since the founding. Consequently, we join other courts, State and Federal, that, when faced with attempts by third parties to extract from judges their deliberative thought processes, have uniformly recognized a judicial deliberative privilege. See [Matter of Certain Complaints under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of the Judicial Counsel of the Eleventh Circuit, 783 F.2d 1488, 1517-20 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904, 106 S. Ct. 3272, 91 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1984)]; Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill. App. 3d 484, 491, [837 N.E.2d 483 (2005)]; In re Cohen’s Estate, 105 Misc. 724, [726-27, 174 N.Y.S. 427 (Surrogate’s Ct. 1919)]; Leber v. Stretton, [928 A.2d 262, 270 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 733, 945 A.2d 172 (2008)]; State ex rel. Kaufman v. Zakaib, 207 W. Va. 662, 670, 535 S.E.2d 727 [2000]. See also United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422, 61 S. Ct. 999, 85 L. Ed. 1429 [1941] [mental processes of judge cannot be subjected to scrutiny; ‘[s]uch an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility’]; Grant v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 1332, 1344 [3d Cir. 1993] [noting threat to administrative law judges and serious interference with ability to decide cases solely on evidence and law if thought process subject to subsequent inquiry; ‘[i]t has long been recognized that attempts to probe the thought and decision making processes of judges . . . are generally improper’]; Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, [740-42] [D.C. Cir. 1973] [MacKinnon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part] [source of judicial privilege ‘rooted in history and gains added force from the constitutional separation of powers’]. To the extent that ‘[e]xpress authorities sustaining [ajudicial privilege] are minimal,’ it is ‘undoubtedly because its existence and validity has been so universally recognized.’ [Id., 740]. See [C.] Sorenson, Jr., Are Law Clerks Fair Game? Invading Judicial Confidentiality, 43 Val. U. L. Rev. 1, 66-67 [2008] [‘[t]he relatively small amount of attention to the privilege in case law and secondary sources should not be attributed to the novelty or tenuousness of the privilege’]; [R. Catz & J. Lange], Judicial Privilege, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 89, 115 [1987] [‘[i]n two hundred years, few have discussed the [judicial] privilege and none have challenged it’].”).

       To the extent that the defendant challenges other aspects of the court’s instructions, we decline to review them on the basis of an inadequate brief.

       The defendant described the property owned by 122 Main Street as an “office building with a parking lot attached to it for thirty-five cars. So, actually it consists of two parcels of real property. One is 21 Walnut Street, one is 122 Main Street, which is a comer of Walnut and Main.”

       General Statutes § 52-552e (a) provides: “A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, if the creditor’s claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred and if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.”

       We disagree with the argument by 122 Main Street that it should not have been named a defendant in this case. On December 12, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to cite in 122 Main Street as a party defendant. The plaintiffs complaint alleges that 122 Main Street, as controlled by the defendant, was part of a fraudulent conveyance. The plaintiff also directs us to General Statutes § 34-134, which provides: “A member or manager of a limited liability company is not a proper party to a proceeding by or against a limited liability company solely by reason of being a member or manager of the limited liability company, except where the object of the proceeding is to enforce a member’s or manager’s right against or liability to the limited liability company or as otherwise provided in an operating agreement.” For these reasons, we are not persuaded by 122 Main Street’s claim.

       General Statutes § 52-552e (b) provides: “In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether: (1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider, (2) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer, (3) the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed, (4) before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit, (5) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets, (6) the debtor absconded, (7) the debtor removed or concealed assets, (8) the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred, (9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, (10) the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred, and (11) the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.”
      There was evidence that the defendant retained possession and control, albeit diminished, of 122 Main Street, he had been sued prior to the transfer of his 100 percent interest and that the transfer occurred shortly after he incurred a substantial debt.

       We note that the trial court did not discuss specifically this means of establishing a fraudulent transfer. Nevertheless, because the record reveals evidence that could support a finding that the transfer was done with a fraudulent intent, the motion for a directed verdict was granted improperly. See Thomas v. West Haven, 249 Conn. 385, 392, 734 A.2d 535 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1187, 120 S. Ct. 1239, 146 L. Ed. 2d 99 (2000); Beale v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 89 Conn. App. 556, 565-66, 874 A.2d 259 (2005).