Reyes v. Chetta
2013 WL 3193356
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Amoroso sold a landscaping/snow-removal business to Chetta in Aug. 2007 for $85,000, secured by a promissory note that allowed acceleration on default but did not provide for reversion of the business.
- Chetta sold the business accounts to Reyes on Jan. 23, 2008 for $50,000; Reyes paid cash and assumed no obligation on Chetta’s note.
- In spring 2008 Amoroso contacted his former customers, told them Chetta had stopped paying him, and asked them to cancel service with Reyes and rehire Amoroso; about 70% did so.
- Reyes sued Amoroso and Chetta alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with business expectancy and CUTPA violations; the trial court found for Reyes, awarding $50,000 damages and $20,383.57 prejudgment interest.
- Trial court concluded Amoroso intentionally and unjustifiably interfered, effectively depriving Reyes of the purchased business; it denied lost-profits recovery as speculative.
- On appeal the court affirmed liability and the $50,000 damages award but reversed and vacated the prejudgment interest award as improper under § 37-3a.
Issues
| Issue | Reyes' Argument | Amoroso's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amoroso tortiously interfered with Reyes’ business expectancy | Amoroso intentionally solicited and induced customers to cancel Reyes’ services, unjustifiably depriving Reyes of the business he purchased | Amoroso acted to protect his contractual rights against Chetta for nonpayment and thus was justified | Court upheld liability: conduct was intentional and unjustified; Chetta’s alleged default did not authorize Amoroso to repossess customers under the contract |
| Proper measure of damages for interference | Full return of purchase price ($50,000) as Reyes lost the benefit of the purchased business | At most recover net lost profits (or 70% of purchase price corresponding to customers taken) | Court affirmed $50,000 award: loss of the purchase price compensates the total loss of the business; profits measure rejected |
| Prejudgment interest entitlement | Sought interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a for money wrongfully withheld | Amoroso opposed interest award | Reversed: § 37-3a applies only to liquidated money claims or wrongful detention of money; Reyes’ claim was not a claim for a liquidated sum wrongfully withheld |
| CUTPA/attorney’s fees determination | Reyes claimed CUTPA violations; sought fees | Amoroso contested CUTPA award and fees | Court found CUTPA violation but declined duplicative damages; attorney’s fees award unresolved on appeal and separated for lack of finality |
Key Cases Cited
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 (recognizes elements of tortious interference and need to show improper motive or means)
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (actual loss is essential element of tortious interference)
- Lawson v. Whitey’s Frame Shop, 241 Conn. 678 (plaintiff bears burden to prove damages with reasonable certainty)
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225 (purpose of compensatory damages is to restore position absent the wrong)
- Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619 (amount of damages is primarily for the trier of fact)
- Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-one Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 (elements and discretion for awarding prejudgment interest under § 37-3a)
- Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712 (§ 37-3a limits: interest only for wrongful detention of money after it becomes due)