Page 39 - CLT061421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 14, 2021 ■ 39
were designed to defraud unsophisticated pa- property was insufficient. Two months after
tients was insufficient to establish an entre- closing, the expenses exceeded the rental in-
preneurial motive and granted defendant’s come, and defendant was obligated to cover
motion to strike. the shortfall, however made no payments on
the expenses. During this period, plaintiff
PERSONAL INJURY • PREMISES LIABILITY and defendant stopped talking to one an-
other and plaintiff allowed his sons to move
Court Finds Genuine Issue of Material into the property rent-free. Plaintiff thereafter
brought a claim against defendant for breach
Fact Whether Property Brokers of contract, violation of the Connecticut Un-
Exercised Control or Possession of fair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrich-
Vacant Property ment. Defendant alleged special defenses of
unconscionability, unclean hands, duress, and
CASE: Motta v. Prokai failure to mitigate damages. The court cred-
COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury ited the plaintiff’s testimony and accounting
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6034870 of the shortfall, and found defendant had in
COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski fact breached the agreement. The court found
DATE: May 21, 2021 • PAGES: 12 defendant was not in the usual business of
Plaintiff was injured when he fell while de- buying and selling real estate, so the plaintiff’s
scending a stairway in the garage at an open CUPTA claim was not applicable, and that
house. Plaintiff brought a defective premises there was no unjust enrichment. On special
action against defendant real estate brokers, defenses, the court found there was no sub-
and the defendants moved for summary judg- stantive or procedural unconscionability, and
ment, arguing they did not have possession or that defendant failed to sustain the burden
control of the property at the time of plaintiff’s to prove duress. The court granted plaintiff’s
fall. The court noted that the previous owner request for specific performance and ordered
had already vacated the property, and that de- the defendant to transfer his remaining inter-
fendants had exclusive access to the property est in the property by quitclaim deed.
and control over the lockbox which contained
the only keys. Defendant also testified that the Right of First Refusal Covenant on
brokerage firm regularly had agents conduct
visual inspections on vacant properties, like the Property Runs with Land
subject. The court therefore found there was a CASE: Love v. Hokin
genuine issue of material fact as to whether or COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
not defendant exercised possession and control DOC. NO.: CV-18-6036905
over the subject property, and denied the mo- COURT OPINION BY: Kavanewsky
tion for summary judgment. DATE: May 18, 2021 • PAGES: 21
Defendants owned a piece of residential prop-
REAL ESTATE • CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES erty in Darien, Connecticut, and had a right
of first refusal to purchase an adjoining par-
No Unconscionability in Real Estate cel. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the adjoining
Transfer parcel, but the agreement was never put into
writing, and defendant thought he retained the
CASE: Krishnamurti v. Tortorici right to first refusal of a future sale. Plaintiffs
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford brought a claim against defendants seeking to
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6042031 enjoin possible further enforcement of a sales
COURT OPINION BY: Genuario restriction of the property to a third party.
DATE: May 21, 2021 • PAGES: 24 Plaintiffs argued they never agreed to or signed
Plaintiff was a tenant at a property owned by a declaration of restrictions, and they were
defendant. Defendant experienced financial misled by defendants. The court noted, how-
struggles and contracted with plaintiff to sell ever, that the restrictions were not contract but
a fifty percent interest in the property. As part rather were covenants that ran with the land,
of the agreement, defendant was obligated to and that upon purchase plaintiffs knew defen-
cover fifty percent of the operating expenses dants intended to keep the property “within the
of the property if the collected rent from the family” and were aware of the restrictions. The
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune