Seven Oaks Enters., L.P. v. Devito
Decision Date | 23 October 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 38325 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | SEVEN OAKS ENTERPRISES, L.P., et al. v. Sherry DEVITO et al. |
Ridgely Whitmore Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Benjamin Gershberg, for the appellant (named defendant).
Ryan O'Neill, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, was Mark Sherman, Stamford, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Lavine, Alvord and Beach, Js.
The defendant Sherri DeVito1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered, after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P. (SOE), and Seven Oaks Management Corporation (SOM), on two counts alleging breach of contract and one count alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury awarded $1.325 million in damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs did not produce the original note at trial, there was insufficient evidence that the note was lost, and the plaintiffs did not have the right to enforce the note; (2) incorrectly instructed the jury regarding SOM's right to enforce the note; (3) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over SOE because it did not have the legal capacity to commence and continue the action; and (4) abused its discretion in denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in refusing to set aside the verdict because neither plaintiff had a right to enforce the management contract, the alleged breaches did not cause any loss to the plaintiffs, and the jury could not determine with reasonable certainty the amount of damages sustained. We affirm the judgment as to SOE's claim regarding breach of the management contract and reverse as to SOE's claim of breach of contract regarding the note and all of SOM's claims.
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found or are undisputed, and procedural history are pertinent to our decision. This dispute concerns a note and a management contract arising from the purchase of a limited liability company by the defendant. Prior to the events in issue, Murray Chodos had purchased a residential property located at 516 Round Hill Road, Greenwich, in 1999. A limited liability company, 516, LLC, had been created to own the property, and SOE was the sole owner of 516, LLC.
SOM was the general partner of SOE and Chodos was the president and managing member of SOM.
Chodos met the defendant and her husband in late 2005 or early 2006. Chodos helped the defendant and her husband obtain life insurance policies and referred the defendant to an attorney, who could draft trusts for their children. In October, 2006, Chodos agreed to sell 516, LLC, to the defendant. The defendant purchased 516, LLC, from SOE for $4 million. Payment consisted of $2.675 million in cash by wire transfer and the remaining $1.325 million by a promissory note (note), which listed property located at 516 Round Hill Road as collateral. The purchase agreement was executed by the defendant individually and by SOE. Chodos signed the purchase agreement on behalf of SOM, which in turn acted in its capacity as SOE's general partner. On the defendant's side, the note was executed by the defendant both as manager of 516, LLC, and individually.
In addition, the purchase agreement provided that until the note was paid, Chodos was to be the co–manager of 516, LLC, pursuant to a management contract, which was attached to and expressly incorporated into the purchase agreement. The defendant and Chodos personally executed the management contract, which included provisions that Chodos was not to be removed as co–manager so long as any debt was owed to SOE, that Chodos was to be compensated for his services as co–manager, and that he would have all powers available to the manager under the operating agreement of 516, LLC.
On April 4, 2008, the defendant, unknown to Chodos or to the plaintiffs, unilaterally executed an amendment to the operating agreement of 516, LLC. The amendment removed Chodos as co–manager, provided Chodos with no voting rights, and provided no compensation to Chodos. On May 1, 2008, the defendant executed another amendment to the operating agreement. This amendment recognized a mortgage of $365,000 in favor of Allied International Fund, Inc. (Allied), and placed the Allied security interest above SOE's note in priority.
The defendant did not pay any of the $1.325 million owed on the note or anything to Chodos for compensation under the management contract. In April, 2010, the plaintiffs initiated this action against the defendant. On December 31, 2011, SOE executed a "Bill of Sale and Assignment" (assignment), which assigned to SOM "any and all claims, rights and title to any and all defaulted loans and damages relating to the sale of 516, LLC." The plaintiffs alleged four counts: (1) breach of contract for the defendant's breach of the management contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for the defendant's bad faith breaches of the management contract; (3) breach of contract regarding the defendant's failure to make payments on the note; and (4) reckless and wanton misconduct by the defendant. The defendant raised several special defenses and counterclaims. There are no claims on appeal regarding the special defenses and counterclaims.
The trial commenced on January 23, 2015. The plaintiffs withdrew their claim of reckless and wanton misconduct before the jury was charged. On February 6, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on all three remaining counts, as well as the defendant's special defenses and counterclaims. It awarded the plaintiffs $1.325 million in damages. The verdict did not attribute damages to any specific count or counts.2 At the same time, the jury provided answers to a set of written jury interrogatories. On February 23, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to set aside the verdict, which motions the court denied on August 21, 2015. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to set aside the verdict and her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs did not produce the original note at trial, there was insufficient evidence that the note was lost, and the plaintiffs did not have the right to enforce the note; that the court incorrectly instructed the jury regarding SOM's right to enforce the note; that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over SOE because SOE did not have the legal capacity to commence and continue the action; and that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in refusing to set aside the verdict because neither plaintiff had a right to enforce the management contract, the alleged breaches did not cause any loss to the plaintiffs, and the jury could not have determined with reasonable certainty the amount of damages required. We consider the claims in a different order for the purpose of clarity, and, in light of our conclusions, it is not necessary to address several of them.
We begin with our standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rendahl v. Peluso , 173 Conn. App. 66, 94–95, 162 A.3d 1 (2017).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group , 327 Conn. 89, 102, 171 A.3d 432 (2017).
We first consider various issues regarding the third count of the operative complaint, which alleged nonpayment of the note. The jury indicated in its answers to interrogatories that it had found that SOE and the defendant originally had been the parties to the note, that SOE possessed the note when it was lost, that the note nonetheless had effectively been assigned to SOM, and that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kissel v. Ctr. for Women's Health, P.C.
...insufficient to support any of the specifications of causation pursued by the plaintiff. See Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P. v. Devito, 185 Conn. App. 534, 558-59, 198 A.3d 88, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 953, 197 A.3d 893 (2018); Jackson v. H.N.S. Management Co., 109 Conn. App. 371, 372-73, 951 A......
-
LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd.
...the plaintiff in the first place under § 42a-3-309 because it never had possession of the lost note. See Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P . v. DeVito , 185 Conn. App. 534, 552, 198 A.3d 88 (under § 42a-3-309, the "only person who can enforce the note is the person in possession of the note when ......
-
Scott v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (In re Scott)
... ... , Series 2004-AR7 c/o BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. Subsequently, that entity 16 assigned the Mortgage by ... multiple claims in light of defendant's chapter seven bankruptcy discharge.") Based on the foregoing, in the ... 2007) and compare with Seven Oaks Enterprises v. DeVito , 185 Conn.App. 534, 198 A.3d 88, ... ...
-
LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Underwood Towers LP
...in the first place under § 42a-3-309 because it never had possession of the lost note. See Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P. v. DeVito, 185 Conn. App. 534, 552, 198 A.3d 88 (under § 42a-3-309, the "only person who can enforce the note is the person in possession of the note when it was lost"), c......
-
2018 Connecticut Appellate Review
...330 Conn. 953, 197 A.3d 893 (2018). [82] 181 Conn.App. 852, 188 A.3d 773, cert, denied, 329 Conn. 913, 186 A.3d 1170(2018). [83] 185 Conn.App. 534, 198 A.3d 88, cert, denied, 330 Conn. 953, 197 A.3d 893 (2018). [84] 181 Conn.App. 716, 188 A.3d 144 (2018). [85] 109 Conn.App. 316, 951 A.2d 58......
-
Business Litigation: 2018 in Review
...at 216. [25] 186 Conn. App. 610, 200 A.3d 747 (2018). [26] Id. at 615. [27] Id. at 617. [28] 327 Conn. 467, 174 A.2d 791 (2018). [29] 185 Conn. App. 534, 198 A.3d 88 (2018). [30] 238 Conn. 745, 680 A.3d 301 (1996). [31] 185 Conn. App. at 547, 548 (quoting New England Savings Bank v. Bedford......