Lawyer's suit over share of $10.5 million Connors' settlement at trial

By Ann Knef | Sep 15, 2011

Jimmy Connors A lawsuit involving former law partners Michael Constance and Edward Brennan over a $10.5 million settlement reached with their former client, tennis star Jimmy Connors, is at trial in St. Clair County.

Jimmy Connors

A lawsuit involving former law partners Michael Constance and Edward Brennan over a $10.5 million settlement reached with their former client, tennis star Jimmy Connors, is at trial in St. Clair County.

Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson presides in a bench trial that got under way on Monday.

Constance sued Brennan in April 2010 on claims that he did not receive a fair share of the Connors settlement reached in November 2009. Their former firm Brennan, Cates & Constance of Belleville began representing Connors in 1991 on various matters including Connors' relationship with the proposed Alton Belle Casino, the lawsuit says.

Brennan, Cates & Constance, which dissolved in 1998, reached an agreement with Connors in 1992 in which Connors agreed to pay the partners 20 percent of the money he received in the Alton Belle and Argosy venture, according to the complaint.

In a fifth amended complaint, Constance claims that in February and March 1997, Connors directed his agents to transfer 458,333 shares of Argosy stock to Brennan and/or Brennan, Cates & Constance.

"That defendant Brennan refused, or did not accept, the tender of the Argosy stock," the complaint states.

Constance is represented by Bruce Cook of Belleville. Constance wants the court to find that Brennan fraudulently concealed his cause of action and that any period of limitations has not expired. He also asks the court to assign a constructive trust to the settlement fund and that the court require Brennan to render an accounting and pay Constance's fair share of the settlement. He also seeks fees, costs and punitive damages.

Constance claims that during negotiations for the dissolution of the firm, Brennan did not inform him that the stock was offered for transfer or that he had refused the stock.

Brennan, represented by Jeffrey Muskopf of Lashly & Baer in St. Louis, denies the allegations.

But, according to the lawsuit, Constance claims that in the firm's dissolution agreement, he waived his share of the Connors fee which was induced by Brennan's failure to disclose the Connors' stock offer.

Constance claims that in May 2005, after he made a visit to Brennan's office, Brennan denied that Connors had offered to transfer stock and fraudulently concealed that information.

"That Michael Constance believed and relied upon the representations of Edward Brennan until about mid-November 2009 when he became aware that Richard Harnacker, James Connors' accountant and CPA, had testified in a deposition conducted on July 16, 2009 that defendant Brennan was informed in February of 1997 that Jimmy Connors wished to transfer the stock in question and Mr. Brennan refused the offer because he 'was busting up with his firm and didn't want them now.'"

In his answer, Brennan denies the allegation that he did not inform Constance that the stock was offered for transfer and denies that he refused the transfer of stock. He also denies he owed a fiduciary duty to Constance.

Brennan also is pursuing counterclaims against Constance. He claims that Constance has "unclean hands" because he has "knowingly made numerous false and misleading representations of fact" during proceedings.

Brennan claims that Constance, as secretary and treasurer of their former firm, had a duty to preserve records, but that he destroyed, gave away or otherwise failed to preserve them.

"As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's negligent acts and omissions, Defendant is unable to adequately defend himself in this action by proving that he timely informed Plaintiff of the offer of stock and that it was not accepted, by proving that Plaintiff was otherwise fully aware of the offer of stock and that it was not accepted, that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily gave up any right he may have had to recovery of the Connors fee with full knowledge of the facts, and to otherwise defend against Plaintiff's claims," Brennan states.

Brennan also states that the stock offer could not have been accepted without an agreement with Connors as to what portion of the fee had been earned.

"Because there were substantial questions about whether transfer of the stock would have completed all of Connor's obligations to compensate Defendant and/or the firm, whether the 458,333 shares in their entirety had been earned as of the time of the offer...the firm and each of its members owed Connors a fiduciary duty to disclose all related issues and interests to Connors and to ensure that he had independent legal advice in such matters before the stock could be accepted and/or distributed among the principles," Brennan's answer states.

Brennan also states that Constance's claims are barred by a five-year statute of limitations. Brennan states that Constance should have known of his claims in the summer of 2004.

In his counterclaim, Brennan seeks dismissal of Constance's claims with prejudice, monetary damages in excess of $50,000, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees and other relief.

St. Clair County case number 10-L-213

More News

The Record Network