978-1285770178 Case Problem Case CPC-20-08 Part 1

Conn.App.,2010.

73-75 Main Ave., LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc.

120 Conn.App. 150, 991 A.2d 650

Argued Dec. 4, 2009.

Decided March 30, 2010.

Background: Landlord brought action against commercial tenant and tenant’s owner for breach of lease. The Supe-

rior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Housing Session, Jack L. Grogins, Judge Trial Referee, entered

(3) finding that owner signed check made out to landlord for first and last months rent and security deposit was

clearly erroneous, but error was harmless;

(4) conclusion that owner’s reasons for stopping rent payments were of no consequence to determination that man-

ager had apparent authority to bind tenant was not clearly erroneous; and

(5) guaranty for rent was not enforceable against owner, under statute of frauds.

106 Courts

106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure

106II(A) Creation and Constitution

106k50 k. Divisions and parts of courts. Most Cited Cases

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30XVI(A) Scope, Standards, and Extent, in General

30k838 Questions Considered

30k842 Review Dependent on Whether Questions Are of Law or of Fact

106 Courts

106III Courts of General Original Jurisdiction

106III(B) Courts of Particular States

106k125 k. California. Most Cited Cases

Even if complaint fails to allege circumstances constituting a housing matter, such a deficiency will not deprive the

trial court of jurisdiction over the action; a judge of the Superior Court assigned to hear housing matters does not

lose his general authority to hear any cause of action pending in that court. C.G.S.A. § 47a-68.

[4] Principal and Agent 308 124(1)

Whether apparent authority exists is a question of fact, requiring the trier of fact to evaluate the parties’ conduct in

light of the attenuating circumstances.

[5] Principal and Agent 308 99

or allows third persons to believe his agent possesses.

[6] Principal and Agent 308 99

308 Principal and Agent

[7] Principal and Agent 308 99

308 Principal and Agent

308III Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons

308III(A) Powers of Agent

308k98 Implied and Apparent Authority

308k99 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Principal and Agent 308 124(1)

308 Principal and Agent

308III Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons

308III(A) Powers of Agent

308k124 Questions for Jury

[8] Principal and Agent 308 126(5)

308 Principal and Agent

308III Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons

form credit checks, landlord received documents from manager and tenant’s owner containing names, social security

numbers, addresses and signatures of both manager and owner, lease and guaranty agreements were returned to

landlord signed by both manager and owner, and rent checks were drawn on tenant‘s bank accounts and were signed

by owner.

308k123 Weight and Sufficiency

308k123(11) k. Authority as to lease of property. Most Cited Cases

Trial court’s finding that commercial tenant’s owner signed check made out to landlord consisting of first and last

months rent and security deposit, as grounds for finding that tenant’s putative manager had apparent authority to

bind tenant, was clearly erroneous, in action for breach of lease, insofar as there was no evidence that owner signed

30XVI(J) Harmless Error

30XVI(J)21 Findings

30k1071 Findings by Court or Referee

30XVII Determination and Disposition of Cause

30XVII(D) Reversal

30k1178 Ordering New Trial, and Directing Further Proceedings in Lower Court

30k1178(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases

Where some of the facts found by the trial court are clearly erroneous and others are supported by the evidence, Ap-

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30XVI(J) Harmless Error

30XVI(J)21 Findings

30k1071 Findings by Court or Referee

ant’s behalf, since check was presented with fully executed guaranty and lease agreement, owner had given her so–

cial security and credit information so that manager would be able to lease building, and owner made five rent pay-

ments pursuant to lease.

[12] Principal and Agent 308 123(11)

308k123(11) k. Authority as to lease of property. Most Cited Cases

Trial court’s conclusion that reasons given by commercial tenant’s owner for stopping rent payments after putative

manager’s accident were of no consequence to determination that manager had apparent authority to bind tenant to

lease was not clearly erroneous, in landlord’s action for breach of lease, even though there was no evidence as to

specific date of accident or circumstances of accident, and despite owner’s claim that owner intended only to help

commercial real estate located at 73 Main Street, Norwalk, entered into a written lease agreement with PP Door for

the use and occupancy of a portion of the property, identified as Store # 2.FN3 The lease was executed by Lawrence

W. Goichman, who was the principal member of the plaintiff and of S.C.G. Commercial Real Estate (S.C.G.), a

property management company that managed the property at 73 Main Street. The lease also was signed by Nan

Zhang, as manager of PP Door. FN4 Each page of the lease agreement also was initialed by the signatories.

FN3. The lease was for a term of five years and two months, and PP Door agreed to pay $1669.79 per

month in base rent for a period of two years, with an annual increase in the monthly rate during the remain-

ing years of the lease term, plus 10.25 percent of certain common charges.

FN4. The defendants deny that Zhang was a manager for PP Door or that he was authorized to act on their

behalf.

the fax cover sheet, which bore the business name, address, telephone and fax numbers of PP Door, Zhang wrote to

Donovan that “[a]ll plans for the Norwalk store [were] laid out last week. My company ha[s] put people and re-

sources into this project. I understand the landlord is holding up time. Would you please try to expedite the lease–

signing process.”

tiff. The check bore the name Splendid Prosperity Company, and there was no testimony as to who signed the check.

Upon receipt of the check and the signed lease agreement, the plaintiff permitted PP Door to take possession of the

property and to commence its business operations.

FN5. Linda Gargano, an operations manager at S.C.G., testified that at the time the signed documents were

received, the plaintiff had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the signatures.

April payment was the last monthly payment received by the plaintiff. PP Door failed to make any further monthly

payments, nor did it pay the common charges.

FN6. Li testified that PYML U.S.A., Inc., had the same tax identification number as PP Door and that the

business address listed for this entity was the same as her home address.

At trial, Li testified that she was the sole owner and operator of PP Door. She denied that Zhang was the manager of

PP Door and that he was employed in any way by PP Door. She also denied signing the guarantee agreement. She