194 Conn.App. 432
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 2009 Manuel Moutinho sold a 9.9‑acre Bridgeport parcel to Greenwood, taking back a $2M purchase‑money mortgage; the lot was zoned R‑A (single‑family) but Greenwood hoped for R‑C (multifamily) rezoning.
- The City of Bridgeport separately expressed interest in buying the parcel for flood‑control and negotiated with both Moutinho (as mortgagee) and Greenwood, but no sale contract or agreed price was ever reached.
- Benchmark acquired municipal tax liens on the property and sued to foreclose; the city later reacquired the liens and was substituted as plaintiff; Greenwood assigned its claims to Main Street (the substitute defendant/cross‑claim plaintiff).
- Main Street alleged Moutinho tortiously interfered with Greenwood’s prospective sale to the city and that the city tortiously interfered with Greenwood’s business expectancy and with the planning & zoning commission’s (PZC) rezoning decision to depress the parcel’s value.
- After a bench trial the court entered judgment for Moutinho on the cross‑claim and for the city on the counterclaim, finding insufficient evidence of fraud, improper means, or improper influence on the PZC; Main Street appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Moutinho tortiously interfere with Greenwood’s prospective sale to the city? | Moutinho repeatedly told city officials to deal with him (he intended to foreclose) and discouraged purchase from Greenwood, thereby defeating Greenwood’s sale. | No enforceable contract/expectancy was established and plaintiff’s evidence was speculative; no proof of fraud, intimidation, or malicious means. | Court affirmed for Moutinho: plaintiff failed to prove tortious conduct or credible evidence of improper means. |
| Did the city tortiously interfere with the business relationship between Greenwood and Moutinho? | City improperly favored Moutinho and negotiated to impede Greenwood’s dealings. | City may negotiate with both parties; no fraud or improper action shown. | Court affirmed for city: plaintiff did not show misapplied law or clearly erroneous findings. |
| Did the city tortiously devalue the property by causing the PZC to reject rezoning? | Finch’s letter and the PZC’s vote reversal imply improper influence causing devaluation. | No evidence any commissioner acted improperly or was coerced; multiple lawful reasons supported the vote change. | Court affirmed for city: plaintiff bore burden and failed to prove improper influence; alternate reasonable inferences exist. |
| CUTPA claim | City and/or Moutinho engaged in unfair trade practices harming Greenwood/Main Street. | Plaintiff failed the "cigarette rule," showed no ascertainable loss, and transaction did not involve consumers. | Court rejected CUTPA claim on independent grounds (including cigarette rule); Main Street did not challenge all bases on appeal, so that portion is moot/dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Otake, 164 Conn. App. 686 (2016) (elements of tortious interference require improper means or motive; interference must result from a tort)
- Loiselle v. Browning & Browning Real Estate, LLC, 147 Conn. App. 246 (2013) (intent to interfere is a factual question reviewed for clear error)
- Selby v. Pelletier, 1 Conn. App. 320 (1984) (appellate review limitations on reweighing factual findings)
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 (2007) (review of trial court findings and reasonable inferences standard)
- Greenwood Manor, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. App. 489 (2014) (property not statutorily or classically aggrieved where not subject of an application during sua sponte rezoning)
- State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519 (2017) (appellate mootness where appellant fails to challenge all independent bases for a trial court’s ruling)