Source: https://connecticut.lexroll.com/73-75-main-avenue-llc-v-door-enterprise-inc-120-conn-app-150-2010/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:06:05+00:00

Document:
Bishop, DiPentima and Schaller, Js.
1. There was no merit to the claim of P Co. and L that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action because it had been filed in the Superior Court Housing Session, which, they claimed, was without jurisdiction once issues were raised relating to forgery, partnership, agency and apparent or actual authority; the purpose of the statutes and rules relating to the divisions of the Superior Court was not to impose any jurisdictional limitation on judges but to achieve greater efficiency in the administration of judicial matters, and a judge of the Superior Court assigned to hear housing matters does not lose the general authority to hear any cause of action pending in that court.
2. There was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the trial court to have found that P Co. held Z out as possessing sufficient authority to sign the lease and that the plaintiff, acting in good faith, reasonably believed that Z had the necessary authority to bind P Co.; there was testimony that before the plaintiff would enter into a contract to lease the space to P Co., the principal officers of P Co. were required to execute personal guarantees and to authorize the plaintiff to do credit checks, the plaintiff presented a copy of a fax from Z that bore P Co.’s name, had been sent from its office using its fax number with a cover sheet containing a note from Z stating that his company had put people and resources into the project, a credit authorization form containing L’s personal information and personally signed by L was attached to the fax, and five rental payments that had been made after the initial lease payment by P Co. were signed by L.
payments on the lease, while not the only logical interpretation of the facts presented, was not clearly erroneous.
4. The trial court improperly held L personally liable as a guarantor of the lease between the plaintiff and P Co. without proof that she had signed the guarantee agreement; although the plaintiff entered into evidence a written guarantee agreement allegedly signed by L, L testified that she did not sign the agreement and that the signature was not hers, there was no evidence presented that L had even seen the agreement or executed it, the person who had signed the guarantee agreement as a witness did not testify and was not even identified, there were no other witnesses who claimed to know anything about the document, and there were no handwriting experts presented to identify the signature on the purported guarantee.
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of a lease agreement, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Nor-walk, where the matter was transferred to the Housing Session; thereafter, the defendant Nan Zhang was defaulted for failure to appear; subsequently, the matter was tried to the court, Hon. Jack L. Grogins, judge trial referee; judgment for the plaintiff, from which the named defendant et al. appealed to this court. Reversed in part; judgment directed.
Lewis Guangwei Hu, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Anthony D. Truglia, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).
for breach of a commercial lease agreement. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) improperly found PP Door liable without proof that the lease was entered into under its name and under its authority and (3) based its conclusion on improper evidence. Additionally, Li claims that the court improperly held her liable as a guarantor without proof that she signed the guarantee agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
The court reasonably could have found the following facts. On or about August 8, 2005, the plaintiff, the owner of 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. 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. Each page of the lease agreement also was initialed by the signatories.
In addition to completing the credit check, S.C.G. also conducted a corporate database search that verified that PP Door was a registered New York corporation located at 36-33 College Point Boulevard, Flushing, New York, which was the same address that appeared on the fax Zhang sent to Donovan. After this due diligence was completed, the lease and guarantee agreements were sent to Zhang and Li. Shortly there-after, the documents were returned to the plaintiff with signatures.
agreement, the plaintiff permitted PP Door to take possession of the property and to commence its business operations.
As part of the agreement, the lease term was to commence September 1, 2005, and the defendants were given two months free rent. Thus, the portion of the August 8, 2005 check that represented the first months rent, was payment for the month of November. The next five monthly payments, December through April, all were paid on schedule, and each of the checks was signed by Li. The December payment was written on a check from PYML U.S.A., Inc., which Li testified was the same as PP Door. The next four payments were all written on PP Door checks. The 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.
before agreeing to make those payments. Li testified that Zhang was her “[f]irst retail person” and that he wanted to be PP Door’s Connecticut retailer, but, she maintained, nevertheless, Zhang did not have the authority to act on behalf of PP Door. Li represented that toward the end of 2005, Zhang was in a car accident and came to her for help paying his bills, and that before she would agree to pay the rent, she went to Norwalk to see the store location and its contents. She testified that she counted 107 doors, which she valued at $45,000. Despite this attention to the inventory, Li testified that she did not see the name “PP Door” on the storefront because she was sick from the drive to Connecticut.
company’s plans to open a Norwalk store and was faxed from the offices at PP Door to Connecticut. The court also took note of the lease agreement, which was negotiated with a Connecticut real estate company, and was completed for the purpose of operating a retail store in Connecticut.
In addition, the court found that as to PP Door’s liability, even if Li did not sign the lease and the guarantee, PP Door had held Zhang out as its representative. Specifically, the court found that “Li and the company, PP Door, entered into this lease through the execution of that lease document. They have clearly put themselves out to the landlord that they were the authorized party renting that property and, or, authorizing Zhang to act as their representative. And the further binding fact is the first check of August 8, 2005, made out to [the plaintiff] . . . for . . . the first months rent and the last months rent and one month security. Now, why would PP Door and . . . Li make out a check for the equivalent of three months rent — actually two months rent plus one month of security, if it was not their intention to allow . . . Zhang to initiate this lease and that they were the responsible parties and that they were authorized or that he was authorized to act as their representative?” After the court rendered its decision, the defendants filed this appeal.
The defendants first claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendants argue that although it was appropriate for the plaintiff to have filed the action in the Superior Court Housing Session, once issues arose related to forgery, partnership, agency and apparent or actual authority, the housing court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction. This claim is without merit.
“[A] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary. . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ross v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 118 Conn. App. 90, 96, 983 A.2d 11 (2009).
member of that court, did not lack jurisdiction to decide it.” Id., 263.
On the basis of the foregoing, the defendants’ claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction fails.
The defendants next claim that the court improperly found PP Door liable under the lease because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that the lease, which was signed by Zhang, was entered into with its actual or apparent authority. We are not persuaded.
the record to determine whether the [court] could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. . . . Instead, we make every reasonable presumption . . . in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
“Apparent authority is that semblance of authority which a principal, through his own acts or inadvertences, causes or allows third persons to believe his agent possesses. . . . Consequently, apparent authority is to be determined, not by the agent’s own acts, but by the acts of the agent’s principal. . . . The issue of apparent authority is one of fact to be determined based on two criteria. . . . First, it must appear from the principal’s conduct that the principal held the agent out as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the act in question, or knowingly permitted [the agent] to act as having such authority. . . . Second, the party dealing with the agent must have, acting in good faith, reasonably believed, under all the circumstances, that the agent had the necessary authority to bind the principal to the agent’s action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 277-78.
Li’s personal information, including her social security number, and was personally signed by her.
Subsequently, the plaintiff sent the lease and guarantee agreements to PP Door, and received the documents back with signatures, including the guarantee agreement that was meant for Li. After the initial lease payment, which included the first and last months rent and security deposit, each of the next five rent payments was by check from PP Door or its affiliate, PYML U.S.A., Inc., and all of the five checks were signed by Li. Contesting the liability of PP Door as to the lease, Li testified that Zhang needed her credit information so that he would be able to lease the building. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, we conclude that there was adequate evidence before the court on which it could have found that PP Door held Zhang out as possessing sufficient authority to sign the lease and that the plaintiff, acting in good faith, reasonably believed that Zhang had the necessary authority to bind PP Door. Thus, the court’s determination that apparent authority existed, was not clearly erroneous.
The defendants next claim that the court’s judgment should be reversed because it was based on evidence that was incorrect or was not presented at trial. We are not persuaded.
the initial payment consisting of first months rent, last months rent and security deposit. The defendants argue that this represents more than a mere misstatement by the court, as was evident from the court’s subsequent rhetorical question, “why would PP Door and . . . Li make out a check for the equivalent of three months rent — actually two months rent plus one month of security, if it was not their intention to allow . . . Zhang to initiate this lease and that they were the responsible parties and . . . that he was authorized to act as their representative?” The court went on to say that “[t]he fact that [Li] thought later on and stopped paying because [Zhang] had an accident and she realized that it probably was not a profitable lease any longer is of no consequence.” The defendants claim that the court had no factual basis on which to make this statement. In sum, the defendants reason that the court’s decision cannot stand because it relied on incorrect factual findings.
Initially, we set out the applicable standard of review. “[W]here the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225, 237, 963 A.2d 943 (2009). Further, “[w]here . . . some of the facts found [by the trial court] are clearly erroneous and others are supported by the evidence, we must examine the clearly erroneous findings to see whether they were harmless, not only in isolation, but also taken as a whole. . . . If, when taken as a whole, they undermine appellate confidence in the court’s fact finding process, a new hearing is required.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn. App. 493, 507, 827 A.2d 729 (2003).
The defendants correctly note that there was no evidence that Li signed the check shown in exhibit J. The court’s statement that Li “admitted that she signed those checks,” was inaccurate as it pertained to exhibit J. The court’s statement was clearly erroneous; however, the court’s ultimate conclusion that the check was written on behalf of PP Door was not clearly erroneous. There was testimony that the plaintiff received the check at the same time the lease and the guarantee agreements were returned with signatures. Under the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the plaintiff to assume that the check was written on behalf of PP Door, and, for the court to conclude as such. Accordingly, the court’s conclusion that the check was made out on behalf of PP Door was not clearly erroneous.
Even if we assume that the court’s factual finding in this regard was clearly erroneous, it was harmless. The court did not base its decision solely on this single fact. As noted previously, the court based its decision on, among other things, the fax that was sent from PP Door to the real estate broker, the fact that Li willingly gave her credit information so that Zhang would be able to lease the building and that she made the next five monthly payments after the initial payment. Due to the overall strength of the evidence, which favors the court’s conclusion, we conclude that the court’s single erroneous factual finding was harmless.
when she realized that she was not going to be paid back that she stopped paying the rent. Li testified that she stopped paying the rent when she realized that she was going to lose money.
opportunity to gauge the credibility of Li’s testimony in this regard.
Additionally, the court was faced with evidence that Zhang had a business relationship with Li, that he wanted to be PP Door’s retailer in Connecticut and that Li had provided her credit information knowing that Zhang was attempting to lease a building in Connecticut. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, and keeping in mind, as we must, that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses “on the basis of its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude”; (internal quotation marks omitted) LeBlanc v. New England Raceway, LLC, supra, 116 Conn. App. 274; we conclude that the court’s conclusion, while not the only logical interpretation of the facts, was not clearly erroneous.
Li claims finally that the court improperly held her personally liable as a guarantor of the lease between the plaintiff and PP Door, without proof that she signed the guarantee agreement. Specifically, she alleges that because there was no evidence that she signed the guarantee agreement, the agreement is unenforceable against her. We agree.
decision is challenged, our review includes determining whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Baron v Culver Associates, LLC, 106 Conn. App. 600, 601-602, 942 A.2d 552 (2008).
performance of a contractual obligation, made to the obligee, is binding if (a) the promise is in writing and signed by the promisor and recites a purported consideration. . . .” (Emphasis added.) 1 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 88, p. 234 (1981).
Therefore, in order for the court to have found Li personally liable as a guarantor of the lease, it had to find that there was a written guarantee agreement that satisfied the statute of frauds. More pointedly, the court had to find that the agreement had been personally signed by Li. There was, however, no factual basis presented at trial on which the court could have reached the conclusion that Li signed as guarantor.
not testify and was not even identified. There were no other witnesses who claimed to know anything about the document, and there were no handwriting experts presented to identify the signature on the purported guarantee. Indeed, the court noted in issuing its decision orally that when comparing the signatures on the lease and guarantee agreements, “the court cannot determine whether or not they are . . . Li’s signatures.” On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the court had no basis on which it could find that Li had signed the guarantee. Without evidence that Li signed the guarantee, the agreement is not binding on Li, and, accordingly, she cannot be held liable as a guarantor.
The judgment is reversed only with respect to Li and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment in her favor. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
 A third defendant, Nan Zhang, was defaulted for failure to appear, and a default judgment was rendered against him. Because he is not a party to this appeal, we refer in this opinion to PP Door and Li as the defendants. Additionally, we note that there have been various spellings of the names Nan Zhang and Ping Ying Li throughout the pleadings of this case. We use the spellings set forth in the trial court transcripts.
 The record does not contain a memorandum of decision or a signed transcript setting forth the court’s reasons for rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, as required by Practice Book §64-1. Although this court has often declined to review claims on appeal when the requirements of Practice Book § 64-1 were not followed; see Jezierny v. Jezierny, 99 Conn. App. 158, 160-61, 912 A.2d 1127 (2007); we have, however, reviewed claims when an unsigned transcript has been filed that adequately reveals the basis for the court’s decision. In this instance, we review the claims on that basis. See Robinson v Robinson, 103 Conn. App. 69, 74 n. 3, 927 A.2d 364 (2007).
 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 remaining years of the lease term, plus 10.25 percent of certain common charges.
 The defendants deny that Zhang was a manager for PP Door or that he was authorized to act on their behalf.
 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.
 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.
 In the defendants’ appellate brief, it is noted that when Zhang came to see Li about the credit authorization, she was aware that he was about to lease a space in Connecticut.
 The Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty notes that “suretyship” and “guaranty” are two “common contractual mechanisms resulting in suretyship status. . . . Although there are important differences between the two mechanisms that should not be obscured, these differences relate to the duties contractually imposed on the secondary obligor by the secondary obligation and not to the nature of the rights inherent in suretyship status. . . . Thus, both are governed by the principles set forth in this Restatement.” Restatement (Third), Suretyship and Guaranty § 1, comment (c), pp. 6-7 (1996).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 88
 §64
 § 64
 v. 
 § 1