Ecos Corp. v. Conlon
Citation | 4 Conn.App. 572,495 A.2d 1111 |
Decision Date | 30 July 1985 |
Docket Number | 3363,Nos. 3362,s. 3362 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ECOS CORPORATION v. Geraldine D. CONLON. ECOS CORPORATION v. WESTLAND COMPANY, INC. |
Elaine Gordon, New Britain, with whom, on the brief, was Raymond A. Garcia, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff in both cases).
I. Milton Widem, Hartford, for appellees (defendant in each case).
Before DUPONT, C.P.J., and BORDEN and SPALLONE, JJ.
The plaintiff, in these combined appeals, claims that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' applications for discharge of two notices of lis pendens.
The facts do not appear to be controverted. On May 14, 1984, the plaintiff instituted separate suits against the defendants, claiming, inter alia, specific performance of agreements it had entered into with each defendant for the sale of real estate. Incidental to the commencement of the actions, the plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens against each parcel of land. On June 25, 1984, at a consolidated evidentiary hearing, the court took evidence on the defendants' applications for discharge of those notices.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff could not show probable cause to sustain the validity of its claims for specific performance against each defendant and stated that its reason for so ruling was that the plaintiff planned to resell the lots. The court thereupon granted the defendants' applications and discharged both notices of lis pendens.
The plaintiff now appeals from that order, claiming error in the trial court's conclusion that specific performance would not lie because the land in question was to be resold. At oral argument, counsel for the defendants conceded that the trial court erred in this regard.
It is universally recognized that the remedy of specific performance is available to enforce contracts for the sale of real estate. Hodges v. Kowing, 58 Conn. 12, 21-22, 18 A. 979 (1889); see Calamari & Perillo, Contracts (2d Ed.) § 16-2 and cases cited therein. The availability of this remedy is not a matter of right, but depends upon an evaluation of equitable considerations. Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386, 395, 439 A.2d 1016 (1981). Robert Lawrence Associates, Inc. v. Del Vecchio, 178 Conn. 1 18-19, 420 A.2d 1142 (1979). The trial court erred in singling out the plaintiff's plans to resell the land as determinative of its likelihood of prevailing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arawana Mills Co. v. United Technologies Corp.
...of equity." Natural Harmony, Inc. v. Normand, 211 Conn. 145, 149, 558 A.2d 231, 233 (1989); see also Ecos Corp. v. Conlon, 4 Conn.App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111, 1112 (1985). 14 Both lessors and lessees can be said to "lease" property. For instance, plaintiff "leases" the property to defendan......
- Zuckerman Group v. Raveis
-
Old Quarry Ass'n v. Hickey
...of specific performance is undoubtedly available in cases involving contracts for the sale of real estate. See Ecos Corp. v. Conlon, 4 Conn.App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111 (1985). An order of specific performance is an equitable remedy "which rests in the broad discretion of the trial court de......
-
Lees Curtain Co., Inc. v. Scinto
...the evaluation of equitable consideration. Frumento v. Mezzanotte, 192 Conn. 606, 615, 473 A.2d 1193 (1984); Ecos Corporation v. Conlon, 4 Conn.App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111 (1985). "An appellate court may not retry facts and its duty upon review of such a claim is limited to a determination......