William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. v. Zajaczkowski
160 A.3d 363
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- William Raveis (plaintiff), a real estate brokerage, and Peter & Iwona Zajaczkowski (defendants) signed an Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer Authorization on March 29, 2010 (one-year term, 3% commission on purchase).
- Defendants later worked with another broker, Chris Carey, signing an exclusive buyer agreement with him on November 21, 2010, and submitted an offer for the Blackhouse property through Carey on January 5, 2011; contract executed January 21, 2011; closing April 12, 2011.
- Plaintiff sought the 3% commission ($12,300) for the Blackhouse purchase, alleging defendants breached the exclusive buyer agreement by using another broker and failing to disclose contacts/leads.
- Trial court found defendants breached multiple provisions (exclusive representation, disclosure of contacts, nonuse of plaintiff as broker) and awarded damages equal to 3% of the sale price; plaintiff’s claims for fraud and breach of covenant failed; defendants’ counterclaims failed.
- Plaintiff submitted affidavits and detailed billing records for attorney’s fees and costs; trial court awarded $11,984 in fees and $309 in costs (total $12,293). Defendants appealed, including challenge to fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants breached the exclusive buyer agreement by dealing with another broker and buying Blackhouse | Raveis: defendants breached by entering an agreement with Carey, failing to disclose contacts, not working exclusively through Raveis, and executed a binding contract during the term | Defs: contract to purchase was illusory/unenforceable so no breach; they had effectively terminated Raveis | Held: Affirmed breach — multiple breaches (agreement with Carey, nonuse of plaintiff, nondisclosure, executed contract while authorization in force) supported award of 3% commission |
| Proper measure of damages for breach (commission timing given closing after term) | Raveis: commission measured by 3% of purchase price because enforceable contract to purchase was entered during term and plaintiff’s breaches caused loss of commission | Defs: closing after term means no commission; purchase contract unenforceable so no proximate loss | Held: Court measured damages by 3% of purchase price; entry into enforceable purchase contract during term and other breaches made award legally correct |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding attorney’s fees without an evidentiary hearing | Raveis: provided affidavit and detailed billing as ordered; no timely objection by defendants; courts may rely on their knowledge and submitted billing records | Defs: court should have held hearing; could not litigate reasonableness without evidentiary hearing; various statutory challenges | Held: No abuse — plaintiff provided factual predicate (billing) and defendants failed to timely object, so no hearing required; fee award upheld |
| Whether award of attorney’s fees conflicted with statutes limiting consumer fee awards | Raveis: contractual fee provision permits recovery; no timely statutory challenge below | Defs: fee award violates § 42-150aa limits and other statutory/formality defects | Held: Court declined to review statutory limitation claim on appeal because defendants failed to raise it timely in trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Storm Associates, Inc. v. Baumgold, 186 Conn. 237 (explains recovery on attorney’s bill where fees are "incurred" under contract)
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (party’s failure to timely object to fee submission can foreclose right to hearing; courts may rely on general knowledge when billing unchallenged)
- Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House, 202 Conn. 106 (reasonableness of attorney’s fees requires appropriate evidentiary showing)
- Shapero v. Mercede, 262 Conn. 1 (court’s general knowledge and unchallenged findings can support fee hourly rate)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan, 285 Conn. 208 (discusses evidentiary predicate for attorney’s fee awards)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 118 Conn. App. 367 (outlines requirement for factual predicate and billing detail to support fee awards)
- Giedrimiene v. Emmanuel, 135 Conn. App. 27 (standards for contract interpretation and factual review)
- Hylton v. Gunter, 313 Conn. 472 (finality of judgment when fees awarded but amount reserved)
- Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515 (judgment final for appeal even if attorney’s fees to be determined)