Konover Development Corp. v. Waterbury Omega, LLC

Citations

• 214 Conn. App. 648

Syllabus

The plaintiff, inter alia, sought to recover damages from the defendant property owner for breach of contract. The parties had entered into an oral management agreement for an unspecified term, pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to act as the defendant's exclusive agent for the licensing of rooftop telecommunications equipment to be located at the defendant's property in exchange for a percentage of the monthly receipts generated by any licenses. The plaintiff procured two contracts for the placement of wireless telecommunications equipment on top of the building on the property and collected the commissions due in connection therewith for approximately eleven years. Thereafter, the defendant only intermittently remitted the commissions to the plaintiff. Additionally, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the defendant had entered into similar contracts for the placement of wireless telecommunications equipment on the building with three other parties and had not remitted any commissions to the plaintiff in connection with those contracts. After commencing this action, the plaintiff filed an application for a prejudgment remedy, inter alia, to secure an amount equal to the amounts allegedly due to it with respect to the two original contracts and with respect to the commissions that it should have received in connection with the three additional contracts. In response, the defen- dant asserted special defenses, including that the plaintiff had violated the applicable statute (§ 20-325a), which barred the recovery of certain real estate commissions, and that enforcement of the oral management agreement was barred by the statute of frauds and the rule against perpetuities. The trial court granted the plaintiff's application for a prejudgment remedy with respect to its breach of contract count, determining that the plaintiff had established probable cause that the parties had entered into a valid and enforceable oral management agree- ment and that the defendant had breach