*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** DANA BERGER v. GUY DEUTERMANN ET AL. (AC 42522) Keller, Elgo and Lavery, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages for breach of contract in connection with the purchase of certain real property owned by the defendants. Following a trial to the court, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff made numerous claims, including that the trial court’s findings throughout the trial were based on fraudulent misrepresentations that the defendants presented as fac- tual trial exhibits and were further supported by false testimony. Held that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate record that would enable this court to review her claims on appeal; the plaintiff filed a form pursuant to the rules of practice (§§ 63-4 (a) and 63-8 (a)) in which she noted that she would not be ordering transcripts from the trial and, in the absence of the transcripts, this court could not evaluate the plaintiff’s arguments in support of her appellate claims without resorting to specu- lation. Argued February 10—officially released May 26, 2020 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defen- dants’ alleged breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London where the defendants filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Knox, J.; judgment for the defendants on the complaint and in part for the plaintiff on the counterclaim, and the plain- tiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Dana Berger, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Lloyd L. Langhammer, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this breach of contract action in connection with the attempted sale of real property by the defendants, Guy Deutermann and Diane Deuter- mann, the self-represented plaintiff, Dana Berger, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants on all counts of …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field