Pellet v. Keller Williams Realty Corp.
172 A.3d 283
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- 2008 sale of 59 Paper Chase Trail in Avon by Stephen Pellet to Kimberly Kilduff; listing price set at about $318,000 and sale closed near that figure. Buyers renovated and later resold for substantially more.
- Daniel Pellet, appointed guardian for Stephen Pellet, sued real estate agents (Olson, Jenkins), their broker and employer (Ladden, Keller Williams), and others alleging breach of contract, fiduciary duty, implied covenant, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligent supervision, conspiracy to defraud, and CUTPA violations.
- At a July 2015 jury trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict after the close of evidence; the trial court granted the directed verdict on all counts, concluding the claims were essentially professional negligence and that plaintiff lacked necessary expert testimony. Judgment entered for defendants.
- Defendants later sought and the trial court entered special findings under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-226a that the action was without merit and not brought in good faith; plaintiff appealed both the directed verdict and the special findings.
- The Appellate Court reviewed de novo whether the claims were all professional negligence and whether expert testimony was required/was presented; it also reviewed whether the § 52-226a special findings were properly made with sufficient specificity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each count was necessarily a professional negligence claim | Many counts (breach of contract, fiduciary duty, implied covenant, intentional fraud, CUTPA) are distinct and not all require professional negligence characterization | All counts stem from the core allegation that agents negligently recommended an undervalued listing price, so expert proof of professional standard was required | Court: Reversed directed verdict — not all counts equate to professional negligence; several counts (contract, fiduciary duty, bad-faith contract claim, intentional fraud, CUTPA) can stand independently |
| Whether expert testimony was required and, if so, whether it was presented | Even if expert testimony sometimes required, defendants’ own real-estate witnesses provided expert-level testimony about CMAs and standard practices | Plaintiff lacked a realtor/broker expert; appraisal testimony insufficient to prove realtor standard of care | Court: Expert testimony was presented by defendants (Olson and defense expert Fairfield); jury had evidence to infer breach, so lack of plaintiff expert did not justify directed verdict |
| Sufficiency of evidence on causation/damages (e.g., dual agency, excluded offers) | Evidence (undisclosed dual agency, temp status showings, a second higher offer shortly after sale, appraiser testimony) could support causation and damages and should go to the jury | Evidence insufficient to prove proximate cause or substantial harm | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to plaintiff, causation/damages were questions for the jury; directed verdict on those grounds improper |
| Validity/specificity of § 52-226a special findings (bad faith / without merit) | Special findings improperly tied to the erroneous directed verdict; court lacked specific factual findings, especially as to Kimberly Kilduff | Plaintiffs’ claims were without color and pursued for improper purposes; special findings justified | Court: Reversed special findings for defendants who appealed (tied to reversed directed verdict); also reversed as to Kimberly Kilduff for lack of specificity in factual findings; remanded for new trial (except as to Kimberly Kilduff where some preservation issues exist) |
Key Cases Cited
- Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845 (standard for reviewing directed verdicts; plenary review)
- Beckenstein Enterprises–Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller, 115 Conn. App. 680 (directed verdict principles; court should view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
- Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C., 311 Conn. 282 (distinguishing contract breaches from professional negligence)
- LePage v. Home, 262 Conn. 116 (expert testimony may be supplied by defendant witness and need not expressly state defendant breached standard)
- Sherwood v. Danbury Hospital, 278 Conn. 163 (professional negligence vs. fiduciary duty: duty of care vs. duty of loyalty)
- Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551 (analysis for classifying negligence as malpractice or ordinary negligence)
- Coppola Construction Co. v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 309 Conn. 342 (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing sounds in contract)
- Stevenson Lumber Co.–Suffield, Inc. v. Chase Associates, Inc., 284 Conn. 205 (elements of CUTPA claim)
- Rinfret v. Porter, 173 Conn. App. 498 (§ 52-226a bad-faith award standards: claims must be entirely without color and court must make highly specific findings)