Attorney Asks Court to Reinstate Him to Yacht Club

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

Fairfield attorney William Bradley Kellogg reportedly got so angry that he challenged a yacht club manager to a fight. With a suspension looming, Kellogg decided to resign from Bridgeport’s Fayerweather Yacht Club. And now a judge has refused to order the club to reinstate him.

In a 10-page decision that delves into state statutes governing a private club’s bylaws, Judge Trial Referee George Thim denied Kellogg’s request for an injunction that would order the club to take him back. The judge said the club’s board of governors was within its rights to take action. “The misconduct involved a threat of violence that was directed against a club employee,” Thim wrote. “Clearly, the board needed to impose a sanction.”

On June 27, 2014, Kellogg, who has a divorce law practice, tied up his boat at the club’s dock and went inside for dinner. He got food at the raw bar, then sat at the regular bar, where he had two glasses of beer and a glass of wine, according to Thim’s decision.

Kellogg, a club member since 2007, got up briefly to take his empty dinner plate to the kitchen. He returned to the bar, but didn’t sit down. He then asked bar manager Daniel Conroy for a cup of coffee. Conroy told Kellogg he would have to get in line at the bar because that was the rule for people who aren’t seated, court documents show.

Kellogg reportedly took offense at Conroy’s admonishment and tone of voice. A short time later, while passing each other, the two men bumped shoulders. The judge, who watched a surveillance video, said the contact appears to have been “minimal and accidental.” However, the men exchanged words and pointed at each other.

Kellogg then returned to his boat with a guest and started the engine. However, he was “overcome with anger about his encounter with Mr. Conroy,” the judge wrote. Kellogg, who is in his 60s, ran back inside. “He challenged Mr. Conroy to a fight,” the decision states. “He told Conroy that he was going to ‘kick his ass’ and was going to sue him.” The encounter ultimately ended without any physical violence, and Kellogg left the club.

Conroy filed an internal complaint and the club’s board of governors held three meetings on the matter. At one, Kellogg admitted he threatened Conroy, according to Thim’s decision. Kellogg told the board: “I snapped-I was extremely angry. It was out of character. I regret my behavior.” He also said, “I feel I was provoked, but no degree of provocation would justify my behavior that evening.”

The board decided a six-month suspension of membership was appropriate, followed by probation for two years. It also required Kellogg to write a letter of apology to Conroy. It notified Kellogg of the planned sanction via a letter.

In response, Kellogg proposed a settlement in which he offered to resign from the club in return for an erasure of the disciplinary proceedings and a nondisclosure agreement. According to the court, the board rejected the proposal. Nevertheless, Kellogg resigned before the imposition of a sanction because, he later explained, he was concerned that his ability to join another club would be jeopardized and his reputation harmed.

But in his July 2014 resignation letter, Kellogg also wrote that he would “reserve all my claims, legal rights and remedies.”

Vague Bylaws?

The next year, Kellogg asserted those legal rights, filing for the injunction that would reinstate him. At a November 2015 trial, he testified that he decided not to write the letter of apology because he felt Conroy was “way out of bounds” and had treated him in a disrespectful manner. He also claimed the board did not have authority to impose sanctions on him because the club’s bylaws don’t describe what conduct would subject a member to discipline or what sanctions would result from specific transgressions.

Private clubs are regulated by state statute, which provides that “membership shall be governed by such rules of admission, retention, withdrawal and expulsion as the bylaws shall prescribe, provided all such bylaws shall be reasonable.” Reached by telephone on Feb. 23, Kellogg said Fayerweather’s bylaws were too vague to be considered reasonable.

“The statute provides that the bylaws prescribe certain rules with regard to members’ expulsion or retention,” Kellogg said. “My contention was that the bylaws of Fayerweather did not prescribe any such rules. Hence, Fayerweather did not have the statutory authority to expel me or issue sanctions. The bylaws are deficient because they didn’t notify me of their ability to expel a member, and under what circumstances.”

In response, the club claimed at the trial that its board had authority to act, it provided Kellogg with a fair hearing, and it imposed reasonable sanctions in light of Kellogg’s conduct. Board members testified they felt the suspension was necessary to guarantee the safety of other members.

“The board was rightfully concerned about the plaintiff’s behavior and had to make it clear to him that his behavior was not acceptable,” attorney Joseph Musco of New Haven, who represents the club, wrote in a post-trial brief.

The judge stated that the case came down to whether Kellogg was afforded a meaningful hearing, and whether the club’s bylaws and the sanction were reasonable. According to Thim, Kellogg “quite clearly” was afforded a meaningful hearing. “While the board may have gone overboard in requiring an apology that in effect was a deal-breaker, its sanction has not been shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence to be unreasonable,” Thim wrote.

Kellogg, who is representing himself, said he has a motion pending to reargue the case.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: CT Law Tribune