THE RESERVE REALTY, LLC, ET AL.
BLT RESERVE, LLC, ET AL.
Submitted on briefs January 4, 2017
from Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Truglia,
E. Casagrande and Lisa M. Rivas filed a brief for the
Christopher Rooney and Brian A. Daley filed a brief for the
appellee (named defendant).
F. Bennett filed a brief for the appellee (defendant Century
21 Scalzo Realty, Inc.)
Alvord, Sheldon and Schaller, Js.
this action to foreclose a real estate broker's lien, the
plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC (Reserve Realty) and
Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor of the estate of Jeanette
Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court
in favor of the defendant BLT Reserve, LLC
(BLT). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the
court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale
agreement upon which they based their claim for brokerage
fees constituted part of an illegal tying arrangement in
violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, (2) the listing
agreements entered into pursuant to such purchase and sale
agreement did not comply with General Statutes §
20-325a, and (3) such listing agreements were unenforceable
by the plaintiffs because they were personal to Jeanette
Haddad. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
record discloses the following facts. In July, 2013, the
plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action in which BLT
was a defendant. See Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere
Reserve, LLC, 174 Conn.App., A.3d (2017). That action
concerned the purchase and sale agreement for a parcel of
land purchased by BLT, known as parcel 13, and listing
agreements through which BLT granted Jeanette Haddad and
Scalzo Realty; see footnote 1 of this opinion; the exclusive
right to sell and/or lease parcel 13 and a 3 percent
commission on any sale and/or lease of the property. On May
10, 2013, the plaintiffs executed a broker's lien on
parcel 13 in favor of Reserve Realty and the estate of
Jeanette Haddad in the amount of a 3 percent commission on
the gross selling price or gross rental price of any portion
of the parcel. Subsequently, on May 8, 2014, the plaintiffs
brought the present action seeking to foreclose on the
1, 2015, the trial court in the breach of contract action
held that the listing agreements between the plaintiffs and
BLT on which the lien in the present action is based were
invalid and unenforceable. See Reserve Realty, LLC v.
Windemere Reserve, LLC, supra, 174 Conn.App. .
Consequently, on September 28, 2015, the parties filed a
stipulation in the present action that the memorandum of
decision in the breach of contract action required the
conclusion that the plaintiffs could not establish probable
cause to sustain the validity of the lien, as required by
General Statutes § 20-325e. The plaintiffs, however,
reserved all rights to appeal. The trial court rendered
judgment discharging the lien in accordance with the
stipulation. The plaintiffs then filed this
appeal, the plaintiffs make three claims identical to those
made in the appeal from the judgment in their breach of
contract action. As the disposition of the claims in the
present appeal must be governed by the disposition of the
claims in Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve,
LLC, supra, 174 Conn. App., we conclude that the
judgment discharging the lien must be affirmed.
judgment is affirmed.