163 Conn.App. 701
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Meadow, an LLC owning a single commercial property at 418 Meadow Street, was formed by Barbara and Steven Levine as 50/50 members; People’s Bank held the mortgage.
- In 2005 Weinshel and Wynnick bought Steven Levine’s 50% interest (33.33% and 16.66% respectively); disputes over management and rent collection arose thereafter.
- Tenants associated with Steven Levine failed to pay rent; Meadow obtained judgments against some tenants but most amounts remained unpaid.
- Meadow defaulted and lost the property to foreclosure (sale in 2009 for $1,550,000); defendants claimed their capital contributions were rendered worthless.
- Barbara sued for dissolution and claimed defendants breached fiduciary duties; defendants counterclaimed for breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties and sought damages (jury awarded $222,400 and $41,667).
- The trial court denied the Levines’ motions to set aside and for remittitur without a written memorandum; the Levines appealed challenging denial of those motions and the sufficiency of the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: whether appeal form deficiency bars review | Levines argued their amended preliminary statement of issues sufficiently invoked appellate jurisdiction despite imperfect appeal form | Defendants argued appeal form failed to identify denial of motions, depriving court of jurisdiction | Court held substance over form controls; preliminary issues made intent clear, so jurisdiction exists |
| Adequacy of record for review | Levines contended record sufficed to review denial of motions | Defendants argued record was inadequate (no memorandum or post-trial transcript) and appellate review should be refused or limited | Court reviewed on limited record, noting appellant’s duty to furnish complete record but declined to dismiss for technical defects |
| Motion to set aside verdict: whether verdict was unsupported by evidence | Levines argued the jury verdict awarding defendants full capital contributions lacked evidentiary support given foreclosure valuation and pleadings | Defendants argued jury could reasonably find Levines’ self-dealing caused foreclosure and loss of investments | Court held great deference to trial court and jury; evidence permitted jury to find Levines’ conduct caused losses—no abuse of discretion in denying set-aside |
| Motion for remittitur: whether damages excessive | Levines argued damages should be reduced as exceptional circumstances for remittitur existed | Defendants argued damages were fact questions for jury and remittitur is rarely warranted | Court held remittitur is extraordinary and, on limited record, denial was not an abuse of discretion; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 281 Conn. 262 (Sup. Ct.) (form over substance; appeal forms are technical vehicles and need not be perfect)
- Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to set aside verdict)
- Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (Sup. Ct.) (remittitur should be rare and exceptional)
- Murcia v. Geyer, 151 Conn. App. 227 (App. Ct.) (appellant’s duty to provide record and requirement for trial court decision or transcript under Practice Book)
- Rocque v. DeMilo & Co., 85 Conn. App. 512 (App. Ct.) (reluctance to dismiss appeals for technical deficiencies in appeal form)
- Gallant v. Cavallaro, 50 Conn. App. 132 (App. Ct.) (subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved first)
- State v. Kurvin, 186 Conn. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (defect in appealing from verdict rather than judgment is not jurisdictional)
- Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co., 152 Conn. 449 (Sup. Ct.) (appeal is statutory privilege requiring compliance with rules)