Hossan v. Hudiakoff
| Decision Date | 17 July 1979 |
| Citation | 178 Conn. 381,423 A.2d 108 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert J. HOSSAN et al. v. Andrei HUDIAKOFF. |
Harold A. Bochino, Danbury, for appellants (plaintiffs).
James R. Healey, Waterbury, with whom was John F. Phelan, Waterbury, for appellee (defendant).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PARSKEY, JJ.
In this action to recover a real estate commission, the plaintiffs have appealed from the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the listing agreement between the parties did not contain the address or addresses of the plaintiffs as required by General Statutes § 20-325a(b).
Practice Book, 1978, § 384 provides that the rendition of summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The plaintiffs brought this action on the basis of an open listing agreement. That agreement was referred to in the complaint and a copy of the agreement was annexed to it and, therefore, became a part of it. Practice Book, 1978, § 141; Redmond v. Matthies, 149 Conn. 423, 426, 180 A.2d 639. Because the sole issue before us is whether the listing agreement complied with the requirements of § 20-325a(b), we need not look beyond the pleadings to decide this appeal. 1
Section 20-325a(b) establishes the requirements for the maintenance of an action by a broker for a commission. There must be a contract or authorization and such contract or authorization must (1) be in writing; (2) contain the names and addresses of all the parties thereto; (3) show the date on which such contract was entered into or such authorization given; (4) contain the conditions of such contract or authorization; and (5) be signed by the parties thereto. The trial court found that the agreement was defective because it did not contain the address or addresses of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs readily concede that the agreement, exhibit C, did not contain the address. They contend, however, that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of their address and this was sufficient to satisfy the statute.
Section 20-325a(b) provides that "(n)o person, licensed under the provisions of this chapter, shall commence or bring any action" unless the contract or authorization meets the specified requirements. The use of the word "shall" in the statute connotes that the performance of the statutory requirements is mandatory rather than permissive. Akin v. Norwalk, 163 Conn. 68, 74, 301 A.2d 258. Thus, the absence of the plaintiffs' address in the listing agreement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. Dubreuil and Sons, Inc. v. Town of Lisbon, 13779
...887 F.2d 705, 710 (6th Cir.1989); Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562, 572, 512 A.2d 893 (1986); Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178 Conn. 381, 383, 423 A.2d 108 (1979); Akin v. Norwalk, 163 Conn. 68, 74, 301 A.2d 258 (1972); Ring v. Williams, 192 Ga.App. 329, 330, 384 S.E.2d 914 (1989); T......
-
McCutcheon and Burr, Inc. v. Berman
...439 A.2d 946 (1981) (brokerage contract signed by owner's agent unenforceable under the statute as then worded); Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178 Conn. 381, 383, 423 A.2d 108 (1979) (failure to include broker's address fatal to listing agreement); Rostenberg-Doern Co. v. Weiner, 17 Conn.App. 294, 3......
-
Daily v. New Britain Mach. Co.
...v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 540, 429 A.2d 801 (1980); but the term "shall" refers to a mandatory requirement. Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178 Conn. 381, 383, 423 A.2d 108 (1979). It seems clear then that the plaintiffs must select the statutory remedy, as it was intended by the legislature to be e......
-
Rapin v. Nettleton, 16989
...439 A.2d 946 (1981) (brokerage contract signed by owner's agent unenforceable under the statute as then worded); Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178 Conn. 381, 383, 423 A.2d 108 (1979) (failure to include broker's address fatal to listing agreement); Rostenberg- Doern Co. v. Weiner, 17 Conn.App. 294, ......