126 Conn. App. 578
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Gateway, Kelso & Company, Inc. sought a prejudgment remedy against West Hartford No. 1, LLC for a $500,000 broker fee tied to a Wakefern transaction.
- During February 2008, the plaintiff sought attachment of the defendant’s property; the prejudgment remedy hearing addressed whether the plaintiff could recover the fee as a commission under § 20-311(3).
- Judge McWeeny denied a formal written decision but ruled the damages were of a nature that the plaintiff could not collect under § 20-311(3).
- In April 2009, the defendant moved for summary judgment arguing collateral estoppel barred the merits issue of whether the plaintiff engaged in the real estate business.
- The trial court denied summary judgment and the defendant appealed, contending that Judge McWeeny’s finding should have collateral estoppel effect.
- The appellate court held that the prejudgment remedy proceeding did not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits, so collateral estoppel did not apply and the denial of summary judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prejudgment remedy ruling on real estate activity is entitled to collateral estoppel in the merits action. | Plaintiff argues there was no full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits in the prejudgment remedy hearing. | West Hartford No. 1 argues the finding should have collateral estoppel effect. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Whether prejudgment remedy proceedings can trigger collateral estoppel given their limited nature and procedures. | Plaintiff asserts the hearing’s limited scope makes full and fair litigation unlikely. | Defendant contends collateral estoppel is appropriate if the issue was litigated and decided. | Prejudgment remedy proceedings do not justify collateral estoppel in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (1991) (collateral estoppel elements and full and fair opportunity to litigate must be met)
- Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn.App. 22 (1994) (probable cause hearing not a full merits trial)
- Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn.App. 403 (2005) (prejudgment remedy proceedings are limited and not part of merits adjudication)
- Bosco v. Arrowhead by the Lake, Inc., 53 Conn.App. 873 (1999) (evidence at prejudgment remedy hearing may be more limited than at trial)
- CC Cromwell, Ltd. Partnership v. Adames, 124 Conn.App. 191 (2010) (recognizes differences between prejudgment remedy hearings and merits trials)