Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Construction & Development Co.
2013 WL 616356
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Landmark Investment Group, LLC sought a prejudgment remedy against Calco Construction & Development Company and John A. Senese in a civil action.
- The court denied the prejudgment remedy, ruling there was no probable cause for tortious interference, CUTPA, or civil conspiracy claims.
- The underlying dispute centers on a 2005 June contract with Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC for development of property at 311-349 New Britain Avenue, Plainville, CT, and environmental remediation costs.
- Town involvement and a Tighe & Bond report lowered remediation costs, leading Chung, LLC to seek renegotiation and triggering disputes about contract validity.
- A September 7, 2006 meeting involved Barry (Chung’s attorney) and others; negotiations reportedly ended with Chung terminating the June 2005 contract.
- Following related litigation, a March 7, 2007 agreement to purchase the property was entered, contingent on a favorable outcome in the Chung litigation, with Senese later financing related matters and acquiring related mortgages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause for tortious interference | Landmark contends defects show deliberate interference by Senese and Calco. | Calco/Senese asserts offers were ordinary backup bids and not malicious interference. | No clear error; no probable cause for tortious interference found. |
| Whether there was probable cause for a CUTPA violation | Landmark argues same facts as tortious interference show unfair/deceptive practices. | Calco/Senese contend conduct was aggressive but not deceitful or unscrupulous. | No clear error; no probable cause for CUTPA violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vincent Metro, LLC v. Ginsberg, 139 Conn. App. 632 (2012) (establishes deferential review of prejudgment remedy decisions)
- TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132 (2008) (highly deferential standard; clear error required for reversal)
- Bruno v. Whipple, 138 Conn. App. 496 (2012) (CUTPA liability framework and elements)
- Sportsmen’s Boating Corp. v. Hensley, 192 Conn. 747 (1984) (differs CAP for CUTPA from common-law torts; framework for unfair practices)
- Stancuna v. Schaffer, 122 Conn. App. 484 (2010) (requires showing improper motive or improper means for tortious interference)