STARBOARD FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al.
v.
William C. GREMP et al.
Argued
October 7, 2019
Page 76
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 77
Appeal
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Fairfield, where the plaintiffs served the defendants with
notice of application for a prejudgment remedy; thereafter,
the defendants filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs;
subsequently, the matter was tried to the court, Radcliffe,
J.
John I.
Bolton, for the appellants (defendants).
Colin
B. Connor, with whom, on the brief, was Robert D. Russo, III,
Southport, for the appellee (plaintiffs).
DiPentima,
C.J., and Keller and Prescott, Js.
OPINION
PRESCOTT,
J.
Page 78
[195
Conn.App. 22] In this action arising out of a dispute over
real estate investments and the disentanglement [195
Conn.App. 23] of business relationships, the defendants
William C. Gremp and W C Gremp, LLC (WCG)[1] appeal, following a
bench trial, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs, Starboard Fairfield Development, LLC
(Starboard), and RR One, LLC (RR One), on counts alleging
breach of a general release, slander of title, intentional
interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of a
promissory note.[2] On appeal, the defendants claim that
the court improperly (1) determined that they breached a
general release with Starboard by pursuing a civil action
against the plaintiffs, (2) found that they slandered RR
Ones title to certain property by recording a lis pendens
and an affidavit of fact pertaining to that property on the
Bridgeport land records, (3) found that they intentionally
interfered with RR Ones contract to sell the property to a
third party, (4) awarded RR One interest on $5000 that RR One
was forced to hold in escrow due to the defendants actions,
and (5) awarded punitive damages without providing the
defendants with adequate notice of a hearing in accordance
with Practice Book § § 7-5, 14-7, and 14-20. After a careful
review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude [195 Conn.App. 24] that the defendants claims are
either inadequately briefed or wholly unpersuasive on the
basis of the record presented, and, accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
The
following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural
history are relevant to the defendants claims. In 2010,
Gremp organized RR One as a limited liability company with
himself as its sole member. As of 2012, RR One was the record
owner of two rental properties in Bridgeport. One property is
a seven unit, multifamily residence located on a corner lot
at 90 Adams Street and 175-77 Newfield Avenue (Newfield
property). The other property is composed of three
residential units and is located at 188-90 Deacon Street
(Deacon property).
In
October, 2012, Starboard and WCG, another limited liability
company with Gremp as its sole member, executed documents to
amend RR Ones operating agreement. Pursuant to the amended
operating
Page 79
agreement, Starboard, which made a capital contribution of
$99,000, owned 99 percent of the newly constituted RR One,
and WCG owned the remaining 1 percent on the basis of a
capital contribution of $1000. The operating agreement
further provided that no member of RR One was entitled to
claim any individual interest in any of the property owned by
RR One. After the agreement was executed, Gremp served as
property manager for the Deacon and Newfield properties.
In
2015, RR One agreed to sell the Deacon property to Gremp for
$140,000. RR One signed a sales contract on November 13,
2015, and Gremp signed the contract on November 15, 2015.
Gremp planned to obtain a mortgage of $119,000 to help fund
the purchase of the Deacon property. In January, 2016, the
parties executed an addendum to the sales contract for the
Deacon property. The addendum provided in relevant part:
"[RR [195 Conn.App. 25] One] shall provide [Gremp] with
title in a form that complies with [Gremp]s mortgage
requirements. Specifically, should lender require title to
remain with [RR One], [RR One] agrees to transfer 100
[percent] ownership of [RR One] to [Gremp] provided [RR One]
disposes of the Newfield property prior to any such transfer
of ownership." The addendum also provided that RR One
would pay Gremp for certain outstanding management fees that
were in dispute.
Prior
to the closing on the Deacon property, Attorney Tyisha Toms,
who represented Gremp, and Attorney Bill Gouveia, who
represented RR One, discussed the mechanics of the transfer
of title. Gouveia drafted a document that, if duly executed,
would have assigned Starboards membership interest in RR One
to Gremp in the event that Gremp was unable to obtain
...