******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
THE RESERVE REALTY, LLC, ET AL. v. BLT

RESERVE, LLC, ET AL.

(AC 38440)

Alvord, Sheldon and Schaller, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 4—officially released June 20, 2017

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Danbury, Truglia, J.)

Daniel E. Casagrande and Lisa M. Rivas filed a brief

for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Christopher Rooney and Brian A. Daley filed a brief

for the appellee (named defendant).

David F. Bennett filed a brief for the appellee (defendant Century 21 Scalzo Realty, Inc.)
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this action to foreclose a real estate

broker’s lien, the plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC

(Reserve Realty) and Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor

of the estate of Jeanette Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant BLT Reserve, LLC (BLT).1 On appeal, the plaintiffs

claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the

purchase and sale agreement upon which they based

their claim for brokerage fees constituted part of an

illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Connecticut

Antitrust Act, (2) the listing agreements entered into

pursuant to such purchase and sale agreement did not

comply with General Statutes § 20-325a, and (3) such

listing agreements were unenforceable by the plaintiffs

because they were personal to Jeanette Haddad. We

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following facts. In July, 2013,

the plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action in

which BLT was a defendant. See Reserve Realty, LLC

v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 174 Conn. App. ,

A.3d (2017). That action concerned the purchase and

sale agreement for a parcel of land purchased by BLT,

known as parcel 13, and listing agreements through

which BLT granted Jeanette Haddad and Scalzo Realty;

see footnote 1 of this opinion; the exclusive right to

sell and/or lease parcel 13 and a 3 percent commission

on any sale and/or lease of the property. On May 10,

2013, the plaintiffs executed a broker’s lien on parcel

13 in favor of Reserve Realty and the estate of Jeanette

Haddad in the amount of a 3 percent commission on the

gross selling price or gross rental price of any portion of

the parcel. Subsequently, on May 8, 2014, the plaintiffs

brought the present action seeking to foreclose on the

broker’s lien.

On July 1, 2015, the trial court in the breach of contract action held that the listing agreements between

the plaintiffs and BLT on which the lien in the present

action is based were invalid and unenforceable. See

Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, supra,

174 Conn. App. . Consequently, on September 28,

2015, the parties filed a stipulation in the present action

that the memorandum of decision in the breach of contract action required the conclusion that the plaintiffs

could not establish probable cause to sustain the validity of the lien, as required by General Statutes § 20-

325e.2 The plaintiffs, however, reserved all rights to

appeal. The trial court rendered judgment discharging

the lien in accordance with the stipulation. The plaintiffs then filed this appeal.3

On appeal, the plaintiffs make three claims identical

to those made in the appeal from the judgment in their

breach of contract action. As the disposition of the

claims in the present appeal must be governed by the
disposition of the claims in Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, supra, 174 Conn. App. , we

conclude that the judgment discharging the lien must

be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 Century 21 Scalzo Realty, Inc. (Scalzo Realty) and The Reserve Master

Association, Inc., also were named as defendants. The action was withdrawn

as to the latter. Scalzo Realty filed a brief adopting BLT’s position in this

appeal.

2 General Statutes § 20-325e (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Whenever one

or more real property claims for liens are placed upon any real estate

pursuant to section 20-325a, the owner of the real estate, if no action to

foreclose the claim is then pending before any court, may make application,

together with a proposed order and summons, to the superior court for the

judicial district in which the lien may be foreclosed under the provisions

of section 20-325a orto any judge thereof,that a hearing or hearings to be held

to determine whether the claim for lien or liens should be discharged . . . .’’

3 On October 5, 2016, BLT, pending the appeal, filed a motion in the trial

court to substitute bond for the broker’s lien. The trial court granted the

motion on December 6, 2016. A hearing was scheduled for January 23, 2016

to establish the amount of bond required. On January 23, 2016, BLT withdrew

the motion to substitute bond. These actions have no bearing on the disposition of the present appeal.