Case in attached files.

find the following using the text

Parties

Facts

Issue

Arguments of the Parties

Decision and Arguments of the Court

CASE ANALYSIS Case 11.1 Pan Handle Realty, LLC v. Olins Appellate Court of Connecticut, 140 Conn.App. 356, 59 130 842 (2013). IN THE LANGUAGE on January 28, 2009. The next day, property again and the cost of modi- OF THE COURT the defendant requested information ications to the property that were SHELDON, J. [Judge! from the plaintiff for his renter's insur- completed at the defendant's request. ance policy, which the plaintiff duly *The court issued a memoran- * * * The plaintiff is a Connecticut provided. By that time, the plaintiff dum of decision resolving the merits limited liability company [a form of had also completed the modifications of the case in favor of the plaintiff business organization] * * *, which requested by the defendant at the (May 11 decision). In that decision, constructed a luxury home at 4 Pan January 17 meeting and agreed to in the court found, more particularly, Handle Lane in Westport [Connecticut] the lease agreement, including the that the plaintiff had met its burden (the property). * * * The defendant removal of the furniture. The defen- of proving that the parties had entered [Robert Olins] expressed an interest In dant's check, which was postdated Into an enforceable lease agreement, leasing the property from the plaintiff January 26, 2009, was deposited by the that the defendant had breached that for a period of one year. In pursuit of plaintiff on that date. agreement, and that the breach had that interest, he submitted an applica- The following day, however, caused the plaintiff damages in lost tion proposing to rent the property Citibank advised the plaintiff that rent and utility bills incurred during from the plaintiff at the rate of $12,000 the defendant had issued a stop pay- the lease period * * *. On the basis of per month, together with an accompa- ment order on his postdated rental these findings, the court awarded the nying financial statement. The plaintiff check and explained that the check would not be honored. The plaintiff plaintiff compensatory damages In responded to the defendant's proposal the amount of $146,000-$138,000 in by preparing a draft lease for his subsequently received a letter from unpald rent for the term of the lease review, which the defendant promptly the defendant's attorney stating that and $8,000 In utility fees incurred by forwarded to his attorney. "[the defendant] is unable to pursue the plaintiff during the lease period- On January 17, 2009, the defen- any further interest in the property." plus interest, and attorney's fees. dant and his real estate agent, Laura Thereafter, the plaintiff made substan- * * * This appeal followed. Sydney, met with Irwin Stillman, then tial efforts to secure a new tenant for acting as the plaintiff's representa- the property, listing the property with The defendant's * * * claim on tive, to discuss the draft lease (January a real estate broker, advertising its appeal is that the court improperly 17 meeting). At that meeting, the availability and expending $80,000 to determined that the parties entered defendant and Irwin Stillman agreed restage it. Although, by these efforts, into a valld lease agreement. The defen- to several revisions to the draft lease the plaintiff generated several offers dant contends that because "material that had been proposed by the defen- to lease the property, It was never able terms were still being negotiated and dant's attorney, then incorporated the to find a qualified tenant, or, for that various Issues were unresolved," there revisions into the lease and signed it. reason, to enter into an acceptable was no meeting of the minds, which is The resulting lease, which was dated lease agreement with anyone for all or required to form a contract. January 19, 2009, specified a lump any part of the one year perlod of the sum annual rent of $138,000. At the defendant's January 19, 2009 lease. In order for an enforceable contract time of the signing, the defendant Thereafter, on March 6, 2009, to exist, the court must find that the par- gave the plaintiff a postdated check the plaintiff filed this action [In a ties' minds had truly met. " * * If there for $138,000 * * * . The lease agree- Connecticut state court], alleging has been a misunderstanding between ment required the plaintiff to make that the defendant had breached an the parties, or a misapprehension by one certain modifications to the property enforceable lease agreement. The or both so that their minds have never prior to the occupancy date, Include plaintiff further alleged that, despite its niet, no contract has been entered into Ing the removal of all of the furnish- efforts to mitigate [lessen] its damages, by them and the court will not make for ings from the leased premises. It had sustained damages as a result them a contract which they themselves On January 21, 2009, the plaintiff's of the defendant's breach, including did not make. [Emphasis added.] real estate broker informed it that, unpaid rental payments it was to have There was evidence in the record according to Sydney, the defendant received under the lease, brokerage to support the court's finding that the planned to move Into the property commissions it incurred to rent the parties entered Into a valid lease agree-ment because there was a true meeting tion that he did not intend to be ing that "the lease agreement was a of the parties' minds as to the essential bound by the lease when he signed valid and binding contract which the terms of the agreement. Prior to the It or that terms of the lease were defendant * * * has breached." January 17 meeting, the plaintiff had still being negotiated at that time. provided the defendant with a draft Pursuant to the lease, the plaintiff was * * *As In any other contract lease agreement, which the defendant obligated to make modifications to action the measure of damages is that had forwarded to his attorney for the premises and the defendant was the award should place the injured review. The defendant testified that at party in the same position as he the January 17 meeting, he and the required to tender a security deposit [and] procure renter's insurance * * * would have been In had the contract plaintiff's representative discussed the The defendant's apparent unilateral been fully performed. * * * As a con- revisions proposed by the defendant's change of heart regarding the lease sequence, the unpaid rent * * * may attorney, made the revisions and agreement does not negate the par- signed the lease. It was then that the ties' prior meeting of the minds that be used by the court In computing the losses suffered by the plaintiff by defendant tendered a check, post- occurred at the time the lease was reason of the defendant's breach of dated to the start of the lease period, executed. There is ample evidence contract of lease. on which he noted payment for a one- in the record evincing [showing] the year lease of the premises. intent of the parties to be bound by The judgment is affirmed. There is no evidence in the record the lease when they signed it and, to support the defendant's conten- thus, to support the court's find