Page 35 - CLT120919

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 9, 2019 ¦ 35

of the property owners were businesses with which In 2014, plaintiff loaned defendant $50,000. The
Joseph Voll was connected in various capacities as loan was secured by a promissory note. The note
member, shareholder, and/or officer. The thirteenth was one of a series of notes, totaling $238,000 in
property owner was an individual, Antoinette V. the aggregate, executed by defendant in favor of
Voll. Joseph Voll entered into written contracts with various note holders. The note expressly provided
Michael Fazio, a principal of plaintiff Property Tax for amendment, waiver, or modification, so long
Management, LLC, to represent the property own- as such amendment, waiver, or modification was
ers in challenging the increased assessments. Plaintiff approved by the holders of notes for at least a
thereafter represented defendant property owners majority of the outstanding aggregate principal
at various proceedings and was able to secure sig- amount. The note’s original maturity date was
nificant reductions in the properties’ tax assessments. December 31, 2015. Plaintiff made demands for
Plaintiff billed defendants for its services, but they re- payment on December 31, 2015 and on three oc-
fused to pay. Plaintiff filed suit. At trial, Joseph Voll casions in 2016. However, defendant and a req-
denied ever having signed the agreements. He further uisite number of note holders also executed a
argued that the amounts billed by plaintiff exceeded series of extension agreements. The first, dated
the amounts set forth in the agreements. The court December 31, 2015, extended the notes’ maturity
rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against date from December 31, 2015 to September 30,
each of the 12 entities represented by Joseph Voll, 2016. The second, executed September 1, 2016,
finding that they did enter into a binding contract extended the maturity date from September 30,
and were jointly and severally liable for all charges 2016 to September 30, 2017. The third and final
incurred. The signed agreements were sent to Fazio extension agreement, executed August 1, 2018,
from Joseph Voll’s email account. They were accom- extended the maturity date from September 30,
panied by the message, “Please find attached the 2017 to September 30, 2019. This agreement
signed documents.” Even if Joseph Voll did not sign also expressly stated that it constituted a waiver
the agreements himself, he arranged for someone in of any default occurring prior to September 30,
his office to sign them on his behalf. The agreements 2018. On April 25, 2018, prior to execution of the
provided that plaintiff’s fee would be 33 percent of final extension agreement, plaintiff sued defen-
defendants’ tax savings. Defendants now sought to dant for breach of contract based on defendant’s
calculate their savings based on amounts other than failure to timely pay the promissory note when it
what was set forward in the notices of assessment matured. Defendant asserted the special defense,
change initially sent to them. Their claims were un- among others, that plaintiff’s claim was barred
availing; they were bound by the terms of their agree- by waiver. The court agreed. Even if plaintiff did
ments. Under the terms of the agreements, defen- not personally agree to the extensions, he was
dants were further obligated to pay all costs incurred bound by the terms of his note, which expressly
by plaintiff to retain an attorney on their behalf, as provided for amendment, waiver, and modifica-
well as various other costs. The court rendered judg- tion by a requisite majority of note holders. The
ment in favor of Antoinette Voll, finding no show- maturity date of plaintiff’s note was thus proper-
ing that Joseph Voll was authorized to enter into an ly extended to September 30, 2019, and demand
agreement on her behalf. and default were waived.

CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • LAND USE AND PLANNING
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
Commission Lacked Discretion to
Maturity Date for Promissory Note Require Parking of Business Vehicles at
Properly Extended Rear of Property

CASE: Eichler v. Healthy Mom, LLC CASE: Voisine v. Southington Planning & Zoning Comm’n
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
DOC. NO.: CV18-6080162 COURT: New Britain J.D. at New Britain
DOC. NO.: CV18-6045151
COURT OPINION BY: Avallone COURT OPINION BY: Aurigemma
DATE: November 18, 2019 • PAGES: 6
DATE: November 14, 2019 • PAGES: 6
The court rendered judgment in favor of de- The court sustained plaintiff’s appeal from a decision
fendant, finding that the maturity date of the of the Southington Planning and Zoning Commis-
promissory note held by plaintiff was properly sion, finding that the commission had no discretion
extended and any claim of default was waived. to impose either of two conditions on the granting of

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune