Nash v. Weed and Duryea Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 15284,15284 |
| Citation | 674 A.2d 849,236 Conn. 746 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ronald NASH et al. v. The WEED AND DURYEA COMPANY et al. |
Bruce L. Elstein, with whom, on the brief, was Henry Elstein, Bridgeport, for appellants (named defendant et al.).
Kenneth E. Lenz, Cheshire, for appellee (named plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a prejudgment remedy in an action to recover unpaid commissions. The plaintiffs, Ronald Nash and Scalzo Realty, Inc., brought an action in several counts against the defendants, The Weed and Duryea Company, Peter G. Huidekoper, Jan E. Cohen and Arnold H. Foster, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and tortious interference with the plaintiffs' rights to commissions arising out of the sale of the business and assets of The Weed and Duryea Company. Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278d, 1 the plaintiffs filed an application for a prejudgment remedy. After a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting a prejudgment remedy to Nash in the amount of $150,000 and denying a prejudgment remedy to Scalzo Realty. In accordance with General Statutes § 52-278l, 2 the defendants filed a timely appeal in the Appellate Court, which we transferred to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendants argue that the trial court improperly ordered a prejudgment remedy in favor of Nash because, in their view, Nash had no right, as a matter of law, to a commission on the sale of the business and assets of The Weed and Duryea Company. This argument is premised on the proposition that the sale of The Weed and Duryea Company principally involved the sale of real estate, and on the fact that Nash admittedly has no license to broker or to sell real estate in Connecticut. See General Statutes § 20-325a. 3
The trial court, however, agreed with Nash that the business sales contract on which Nash seeks to recover a commission "does not concern real property." The contract between Nash and The Weed and Duryea Company expressly provided that any part of the overall sales transaction affecting the transfer of real property would be covered under a separate real estate addendum. Accordingly, the defendants thereafter entered into a separate contract with Scalzo Realty, Inc., a licensed real estate broker, for the sale of the real estate. Furthermore, the trial court found that the commission claimed by Nash "does not include the value of the real property...." On this basis, the trial court determined that there was "sufficient evidence to find probable cause that Nash will be successful on his commission claim."
In the absence of a procedural flaw in prejudgment remedy proceedings; see, e.g., Hotz Corp. v. Carabetta, 226 Conn. 812, 816-17, 629 A.2d 377 (1993); appellate courts have only a limited role to play in reviewing a trial court's broad discretion to deny or to grant a prejudgment remedy. Greenberg, Rhein & Margolis, Inc. v. Norris-Faye Horton Enterprises, Inc., 218 Conn. 162, 166, 588 A.2d 185 (1991); Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152, 156-57, 595 A.2d 872 (1991); New England Land Co. v. DeMarkey, 213 Conn. 612, 620-21, 569 A.2d 1098 (1990); Augeri v. C.F. Wooding Co., 173 Conn. 426, 429, 378 A.2d 538 (1977). The defendants in this case have not sustained their burden of showing clear error.
The judgment is affirmed.
1 General Statutes § 52-278d provides in relevant part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DiLoreto
...§§ 52-278a through 52-278n; under circumstances affording only limited opportunity for appellate review. See Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co., 236 Conn. 746, 749, 674 A.2d 849 (1996) and cases cited therein. Because civil actions may linger on trial court calendars for significant periods of time,......
-
New Hartford v. Ct. Resources Recovery Auth.
...Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Lighthouse Landings, Inc., 279 Conn. 90, 92-93, 900 A.2d 1242 (2006); Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co., 236 Conn. 746, 747-48, 674 A.2d 849 (1996); Kendall v. Amster, 108 Conn.App. 319, 321, 948 A.2d 1041 (2008); Chen v. Bernadel, 101 Conn.App. 658, 660-61, 922 A.2......
-
In re Flanagan
...152, 156, 595 A.2d 872 (1991) (emphasis supplied). In this respect, the Court enjoys broad discretion. E.g., Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co., 236 Conn. 746, 749, 674 A.2d 849 (1996). B. The starting point for an analysis of probable cause is necessarily an assessment of the claims made by the Pla......
-
Soltesz v. Miller
...in reviewing a trial court's broad discretion to deny or to grant a prejudgment remedy." (Citation omitted.) Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co., 236 Conn. 746, 749, 674 A.2d 849 (1996). The issue of "whether a court session at which the parties are represented by counsel, introduce affidavits and ma......