Case Name: Lillian Bourque et al. v. Adele DiChiara et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1988-10-11
Citations: 16 Conn. App. 801
Docket Number: 6219
Parties: Lillian Bourque et al. v. Adele DiChiara et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
Lillian Bourque et al. v. Adele DiChiara et al.
(6219)
Spallone, Daly and Norcott, Js.
Argued September 20
decision released October 11, 1988
John F. Slane, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Francis X. Lennon, Jr., for the appellant (defendant Stella Paklos).
Rocco R. P. Perna, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant Stella Paklos is appealing from the judgment rendered by the trial court upon the report of the attorney trial referee.
In this action, the trial court found facts, drew legal conclusions and rendered judgment where there was a material variance between the. pleadings and the proof. The plaintiff alleged that a deed was signed "under undue influence," because of a "confidential relationship," because of "coaxing" and as a consequence of "fradulent misrepresentation." The court found that the deed was never signed and that the alleged grantor was "completely lacking in mental capacity" (emphasis added) to execute a deed.
The variance between the pleadings and the proof was material and no amended complaint conforming the allegations to the proof was filed. A party may not recover on a theory or cause of action not pleaded. See, e.g., Reciprocal Exchange v. Altherm, Inc., 142 Conn. 545, 551, 115 A.2d 460 (1955); Spitz v. Abrams, 128 Conn. 121, 123, 20 A.2d 616 (1941); Collins v. Erdmann, 122 Conn. 626, 632, 191 A. 521 (1937); Francis v. Hollauer, 1 Conn. App. 693, 696-97, 475 A.2d 326 (1984).
There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.