From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 12, 2021
339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)

Opinion

10-12-2021

The RESERVE REALTY, LLC, et al. v. WINDEMERE RESERVE, LLC, et al.

Daniel E. Casagrande, Bridgeport, in support of the petition. J. Christopher Rooney, Marc Kurzman, Stamford, and Drew J. Cunningham, New Haven, in opposition.


Daniel E. Casagrande, Bridgeport, in support of the petition.

J. Christopher Rooney, Marc Kurzman, Stamford, and Drew J. Cunningham, New Haven, in opposition.

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 205 Conn. App. 299, 258 A.3d 711 (AC 38167), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the commercial real estate brokerage agreements were unenforceable because the terms of those agreements did not satisfy the requirement in General Statutes § 20-325a (c) that any such agreements state ‘the duration of the authorization’ contained therein?

"2. Did the trial court correctly determine that the listing agreements were contracts for the personal services of Jeanette Haddad and, therefore, that the defendants were not liable to any of the plaintiffs for brokerage commissions, even if the agreements had been enforceable by Jeanette Haddad during her lifetime?"


Summaries of

Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 12, 2021
339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)
Case details for

Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC

Case Details

Full title:The RESERVE REALTY, LLC, et al. v. WINDEMERE RESERVE, LLC, et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Oct 12, 2021

Citations

339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)
339 Conn. 901

Citing Cases

The Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC

And (2) "[d]id the trial court correctly determine that the listing agreements were contracts for the…