THE RESERVE REALTY, LLC, ET AL.
WINDEMERE 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, Windemere Reserve, LLC
(Windemere). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the
court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale
agreement upon which they base their claim for brokerage fees
constituted 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
Windemere 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 Windemere, known as parcel
15, and listing agreements through which Windemere granted
Jeanette Haddad and Scalzo Realty; see footnote 1 of this
opinion; the exclusive right to sell and/or lease parcel 15
and a $1 million commission for the services performed. On
May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs executed a broker's lien on
parcel 15 in favor of Reserve Realty and the estate of
Jeanette Haddad in the amount of a $1 million commission.
Subsequently, on May 8, 2014, the plaintiffs brought the
present action seeking to foreclose on the broker's lien.
1, 2015, the trial court in the breach of contract action
held that the agreements between the plaintiffs and Windemere
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 trial court rendered judgment
discharging the lien in accordance with the stipulation. The
plaintiffs, however, reserved all rights to appeal. The
plaintiffs then filed this appeal.
appeal, the plaintiffs make three claims identical to those
made in their appeal from the judgment in their breach of
contract action. As the disposition of the claims in the
present action 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.