Vincent Metro, LLC v. Ginsberg
57 A.3d 781
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Vincent Metro, LLC, a licensed real estate broker, sues four defendants over alleged earned commissions under an exclusive listing for YAH Realty’s Hamden condominiums.
- The listing agreement ran July 18, 2006 to January 7, 2006 (likely a typographical error in original; parties proceeded), with Metro entitled to 5% commissions for units sold or bought by ready, willing and able buyers on seller-terms or seller-acceptable terms.
- Metro introduced buyer John to YAH; John and YAH signed a contract for unit 16 on December 13, 2006, with a $20,000 deposit; closing date set but delayed; John cancelled after construction delays.
- In 2008, John and his mother Rose bought units 12 and 13 directly from YAH; Metro has not been paid any commissions for either unit 16 cancellation or 12/13 purchases.
- Metro filed this action in 2009 and sought a prejudgment remedy of $22,568.56; the trial court denied the remedy in 2011, and Metro appeals.
- The court reverses on the unit-16 commission procurement, but affirms on other aspects, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metro proved probable cause to obtain a prejudgment remedy based on procuring a ready, willing and able buyer for unit 16. | Metro's procurement met the listing contract terms and a written contract was executed during the term. | Ditchkus Real Estate Co. v. Storm shows contingency-based buyers void the remedy. | Probable cause established for unit 16; remedy granted in part (reversed to allow proceeding) |
| Whether Metro is entitled to a commission for the 2008 sale of units 12 and 13 to John and Rose. | Initial procurement of John during the listing period and subsequent involvement entitle commission. | No evidence that John/Rose agreed to terms during the listing period; 2008 sale not linked to terms negotiated then. | No commission established for units 12 and 13; denial upheld; remand not necessary for those units |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the standard for prejudgment remedy and the Ditchkus/contingency framework. | Contingency did not defeat plaintiff's entitlement; seller’s unilateral nonperformance cannot defeat broker’s right. | Contingencies can defeat ready and willing finding under Ditchkus. | Standard was misapplied for unit 16; contingency not controlling; court to reassess consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Revere Real Estate, Inc. v. Cerato, 186 Conn. 74 (Conn. 1982) (broker entitled to commission if ready, willing and able under listing terms)
- Storm Associates, Inc. v. Baumgold, 186 Conn. 237 (Conn. 1982) (broker's entitlement when ready, willing and able on owner’s terms, even if no contract closed)
- Ditchkus Real Estate Co. v. Storm, 25 Conn. App. 51 (Conn. App. 1991) (contingency-based buyers can defeat recovery under certain listing terms)
- Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311 (Conn. 1950) (broker entitled to commission even without closing if purchaser ready, willing and able)
- Finch v. Donella, 136 Conn. 621 (Conn. 1950) (historical basis for broker entitlement under ready, willing and able standard)
- Wright v. Reid, 111 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1930) (early articulation of broker’s entitlement to commission)
- Covino v. Pfeffer, 160 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1970) (commission based on terms during listing period)
- Levy, Miller, Maretz, LLC v. Vuoso, 70 Conn. App. 124 (Conn. App. 2002) (post-listing agreement commissions where negotiations occurred within period)