The plaintiff, Moran, Shuster, Carignanand Knierim, is a general partnership engaged inthe practice of law with its principal office located inAvon. The plaintiff is the successor to the firm ofAugust, Moran, Lazorick and Shuster. The defendant,Robert B. August, was a partner in the plaintiff untilMarch 20, 1991, when he withdrew from the partnership.Pursuant to a written partnership agreement,each partner in the firm had a capital account that hewas obligated to maintain in the amount of $10,000.As of the date of the defendant's withdrawal from thefirm, his capital account had a negative balance of$46,699.07. After the defendant's withdrawal, despiterepeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendant failedand refused to repay his capital account.
The plaintiff commenced this action in the trial courtalleging, inter alia, breach of the partnership agreement,unjust enrichment and a violation of the ConnecticutUnfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). General Statutes§ 42-110a et seq. The defendant denied the plaintiff'sallegations and counterclaimed seeking, inter alia, compensationpursuant to the partnership agreement. Thetrial court determined that the defendant had "failedto repay his negative capital account pursuant to theterms of the [partnership] agreement" and that thedefendant's negative capital account was an accountreceivable of the partnership. It thereafter found in theplaintiff's favor on all counts of its complaint exceptthe CUTPA count, on which it found for the defendant.As to the counterclaim, the trial court found that thedefendant was entitled to compensation of $2400 pursuantto the partnership agreement. The court, therefore,rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amountof $44,299.07. The defendant appealed from the judgmentof the trial court to the Appellate Court and wetransferred the appeal to this court pursuant to PracticeBook § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c).
[232 Conn. 758]
After examining the record on appeal and consideringthe briefs and arguments of the parties, we concludethat the judgment of the trial court must beaffirmed. The facts found by the trial court had a foundationin the evidence and were not clearly erroneous;Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217,221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980); and the legal issuesraised by the defendant on appeal were resolved properlyin the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandumof decision of the trial court. Moran, Shuster, Carignan& Knierim v. August, 43 Conn. Sup. 431, 657 A.2d 736(1994).1 It would serve no useful purpose for us torepeat the discussion contained in the trial court's memorandum.Advanced Business Systems, Inc. v. Crystal,231 Conn. 378, 380-81, 650 A.2d 540 (1994); Van DyckPrinting Co. v. DiNicola, 231 Conn. 272, 274,648 A.2d 877 (1994).
The judgment is affirmed.
1. The plaintiff did not appeal the trial court's denial ofits CUTPA claim. The plaintiff's CUTPA claim, therefore, is notbefore us and we express no opinion with regard to the trial