Case Background
The legal dispute between Randall Paquette and Gary Thompson centered on a long-standing business arrangement involving several real estate holdings and residential property in Connecticut. The conflict formally reached the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford in July 2021 when Randall Paquette filed a lawsuit alleging that Gary Thompson had failed to honor a series of agreements made between 2012 and 2018. At the heart of the matter was the management and ownership of several limited liability companies and the rental properties they held.
Cause
Randall Paquette alleged that Gary Thompson breached both written and oral contracts that they established starting in May 2012. Under the terms of their agreement, Thompson had promised to turn over specific LLCs—including 172 High St. LLC, 88-90 Clark St. LLC, and 190 Fairview LLC—along with the properties they contained. Paquette maintained that he had fulfilled his part of the bargain by managing these properties for years and paying all associated expenses. He further claimed that he provided Thompson with $50,000 intended for the purchase of a residence in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, with the understanding that the money would be repaid through the transfer of the LLC assets. The relationship collapsed when Thompson allegedly refused to transfer the titles and claimed no such deal existed, leading Paquette to sue for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
Injury
Randall Paquette suffered significant financial losses because he had invested years of labor and substantial capital into properties he did not ultimately own. He claimed that he had done all the work to keep the properties afloat, even borrowing money to maintain them, while Thompson enjoyed the benefits of his services. Paquette specifically pointed to the loss of the $50,000 he provided for Thompson's home and the loss of the equity in the rental properties located at 118-120 Magnolia Street, 30 Mill Street, and 55 Market Street.
Damages Sought
Paquette sought several forms of relief from the Court to address his losses. His primary demand included money damages exceeding $15,000 and interest, including post-judgment interest at the legal rate. He also requested that the Court order the transfer of titles for the disputed properties to his name. Additionally, he asked for the reimbursement of his legal costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred during the litigation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation progressed through various stages of pleading and discovery over nearly five years. A significant development occurred in late 2024 when a crossclaim by Apex Properties, LLC, brought Helen Paquette into the proceedings. This secondary conflict involved allegations regarding rent payments and the use of business funds for personal housing expenses.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Randall Paquette appeared as the primary Plaintiff in the action.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Boatman Law Llc
Defendant(s): Gary Thompson served as the lead Defendant. Other named Defendants included 33A Robbins Lane, LLC, 172 High Street, LLC, 88-90 Clark Street, LLC, 190 Fairview Street, LLC, and Apex Properties, LLC. Helen Paquette was a Defendant specifically regarding the crossclaim.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Patrick W. Boatman
· Experts for Defendant(s): Emmanuel Onikuyide
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The parties presented fundamentally different versions of their financial relationship. Paquette's counsel argued that Thompson had "plotted, induced, and misled" Paquette into performing years of management work only to refuse to consummate the property transfers once the real estate market became strong. They argued that Thompson's denial of the deal was a fraudulent attempt to retain assets that Paquette had earned through his labor and financial contributions.
On the other side, Helen Paquette’s counsel filed an answer and special defenses to the crossclaim, arguing that any payments she received were for a legitimate purpose. They contended that Randall Paquette had paid for the use of the basement in her Manchester home while he lived there. Her legal team also raised procedural defenses, asserting that the claims against her were barred by the statute of limitations because more than three years had passed since she received any payments. They further argued that Apex Properties, LLC, lacked the standing to sue her because it merely acted as an agent for other property owners and did not actually own the funds in question.
Claims
Randall Paquette's complaint detailed several legal theories for recovery. In his claim for Breach of Contract, he asserted that Thompson failed to perform the agreed-upon transfer of LLCs and properties despite Paquette fulfilling his management obligations. Under the Unjust Enrichment claim, Paquette argued that Thompson had unfairly accepted the benefits of Paquette's services and money without providing the promised compensation. He also requested a Constructive Trust, alleging that Thompson had used Paquette’s $50,000 to acquire the property at 615 Cedar Hollow Drive through fraudulent or unconscionable conduct. Finally, his claim for Fraud and Fraud by Inducement alleged that Thompson never intended to follow through with the deal and had intentionally misled Paquette for years.
Defense
The Defendants denied the core allegations of the complaint. Helen Paquette, in her specific defense against the crossclaim, denied every allegation in the various counts brought against her. She argued that Gary Thompson had access to the financial records of Apex Properties, LLC, at all times and could have reviewed them if he had any concerns. The defense maintained that the payments made to Helen Paquette were simple rent payments for Randall's living space and that the legal timeframe for challenging those payments had already expired.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded in January 2026, and the jury reached its decision on January 30, 2026. The jury delivered a split verdict that addressed the various claims against the different Defendants.
Decision on Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment
The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, Randall Paquette, on the claim of Unjust Enrichment. They determined that the Defendants specifically Gary Thompson, 172 High Street, LLC, 88-90 Clark Street, LLC, and 190 Fairview Street, LLC owed Paquette for the benefits he had provided. For this claim, the jury awarded Paquette total economic damages in the amount of $685,050.00. Regarding the Breach of Contract claim, the verdict form indicated a finding in favor of the Plaintiff, though the specific economic damages for that count were not recorded as a separate figure from the total award.
Decision on Fraudulent Transfer
The jury also weighed in on the transfer of the property located at 615 Cedar Hollow Drive in Rocky Hill. They found that the transfer of title for this property to 33A Robbins Lane, LLC, was indeed fraudulent as to Randall Paquette. While the jury established that the fraud had occurred, they left the specific remedy for this finding to be determined by the Court.
Defendants' Verdict on Other Counts
The jury simultaneously signed a "Defendants' Verdict" form for several entities. This form indicated a finding in favor of Gary Thompson, 33A Robbins Lane, 172 High Street, LLC, 88-90 Clark Street, LLC, 190 Fairview Street, LLC, and Apex Properties, LLC, on certain counts as they applied to other aspects of the litigation. Specifically, on a separate portion of the verdict regarding the fraudulent transfer claim, the jury noted a finding that the transfer was NOT fraudulent, though this appears to be a procedural record of the Defendants' denied position or a verdict on a separate sub-issue, as the Plaintiff's Verdict form clearly recorded a finding of fraud for that same property.
The Honorable Claudio Baio accepted and recorded the verdict at 3:40 pm on January 30, 2026, officially concluding the jury's involvement in the case.
