Opinion
(2904)
Argued February 28, 1985
Decision released May 7, 1985
Action to recover damages for breach of contract and for fraudulent misrepresentation, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the court, Corrigan, J., granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the defendant Warren Driessens; thereafter, the case was tried to the jury before Susco, J.; verdict and judgment for the named defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. No error.
Rita H. Driessens, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Ernest J. Mattei, for the appellee (named defendant).
The plaintiff filed this appeal following a trial in which the jury found against the plaintiff on a claim of breach of contract. The original suit included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract against both Heloise Driessens and Warren Driessens as defendants. The trial court ruled for the defendant Warren Driessens on motions for summary judgment, and those rulings are not a subject of this appeal. The trial court, finding that the action had not been commenced within the three year statute of limitations, also ruled in favor of the defendant Heloise Driessens on the fraud count as a matter of law.
After a careful study of the briefs and the record, and after a careful analysis of those issues which we consider properly before this court, we conclude that there is no merit to the plaintiff's claims.