GIEDRIMIENE v. Emmanuel
135 Conn. App. 27
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Giedrimiene signed a real estate purchase contract to buy Emmanuel's residence for $610,000, with a $31,000 deposit and Calabro & Associates as the sole broker.
- The contract allowed dual agency representation by Calabro & Associates for both buyer and seller, via a dual agency consent agreement.
- Mortgage contingency required a $579,000 loan by April 18, 2006 (extended to May 2, 2006), but plaintiff's mortgage application was not filed until April 25, 2006 and was denied.
- Extensions were granted to May 19, 2006, and then to a closing date in June 2006; the deposit was at stake if closing failed.
- Zdeb pressured the plaintiff to enter an exclusive listing for her Stonehill residence, while mortgage financing plans were being pursued, allegedly affecting the closing.
- Trial court found plaintiff sustained her claims against defendants but that defendants significantly contributed to the plaintiff's default, thus denying attorney's fees; judgment favored defendants on the plaintiff's claims against them and against Emmanuel on other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were prevailing party under contract | Giedrimiene contends defendants cannot recover as prevailing party under contract. | Zdeb/Calabro argue they are the prevailing party under paragraph six. | Court erred in defining prevailing party but contract provisions ultimately preclude fees. |
| Applicability of paragraph twelve to bar fees | Giedrimiene argues paragraph twelve does not apply to this deposit dispute. | Zdeb/Calabro assert paragraph twelve applies and bars fees if there was significant contributed default. | Paragraph twelve applies and precludes fee recovery due to defendants' significant contribution to the default. |
| Effect of dual agency and equitable estoppel on fee recovery | Giedrimiene contends dual agency and estoppel support fee denial for defendants. | Defendants contend dual agency compliance with statute; they should recover fees notwithstanding estoppel. | Contract terms preclude fee recovery regardless of dual agency or equitable estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Genua v. Logan, 118 Conn.App. 270 (Conn. App. 2009) (contract interpretation standard and plenary review for definitive language)
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217 (Conn. 1980) (clarifies standards for reviewing contract-based conclusions)
- Wallerstein v. Stew Leonard's Dairy, 258 Conn. 299 (Conn. 2001) (prevailing party definition includes judgment in the plaintiff's or defendant's favor regardless of damages)
- Electric Cable Compounds, Inc. v. Seymour, 95 Conn.App. 523 (Conn. App. 2006) (read contract as a whole; provisions interact and construe together)