Jakab v. Sewell, No. Cv94 04 60 54s (Jun. 13, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Jakab v. Sewell, No. Cv94 04 60 54s (Jun. 13, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6537

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 13, 1994

DocketNo. CV94 04 60 54S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6537 (Jakab v. Sewell, No. Cv94 04 60 54s (Jun. 13, 1994)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jakab v. Sewell, No. Cv94 04 60 54s (Jun. 13, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6537 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs purchased property from the defendant and asserts a claim for monetary damages arising out of representations made with respect to water leakage, the septic system and the furnace. The First Count alleges a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendants have moved to strike the first count on the grounds that the facts alleged in the complaint do not give rise to a CUTPA violation inasmuch as the complaint alleges only an isolated private sale of real estate.

The court agrees with the plaintiffs that an allegation of a single prohibited act sufficiently states a cause of action under CUTPA. Gaskin v. Levinson, 7 CSCR 409 (April 6, 1992) (Rush, J.). However, General Statutes § 42-110b prohibits Unfair Trade Practices "in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The complaint alleges only an isolated private sale of real estate and does not allege that the defendants engaged in any trade or commerce other than the isolated sale which is the subject of the lawsuit. An isolated private sale of real estate by one not in the business of doing so is, in the opinion of the court, not encompassed within the "trade or commerce" language of General Statutes § 42-110b. The court recognizes that there is a split of authority in the Superior Court decisions but the court is in agreement with those cases holding that such an isolated sale is not encompassed by the Unfair Trade Practices Act. See such cases as Larson Skiba Associates, Inc.v. C and C Package Store, Inc., 110 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 14, 441 (January 24, 1994) (Corradino, J.); Skinner v. Till,3 Conn. L. Rptr. 481 (1991) (Teller, J.); McCarthy v. Fingelly,4 Conn. L. Rptr. 177 (1991) (Katz, J.); Bertrum v. Miller, 4 CSCR 244 (1989) (Pickett, J.); Guastamachio v. United Laboratory, 4 CSCR 414 (1989) (Walsh, J.); Basile v. Wosniak], 4 CSCR 403 (1989) (Leuba, J.); [Keeler v. Deuth, 3 CSCR 764 (1988) (Healy, J.) (for cases contra see forgoing decisions). Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is hereby granted.

Rush, J. CT Page 6538

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs purchased property from the defendant and asserts a claim for monetary damages arising out of representations made with respect to water leakage, the septic system and the furnace. The First Count alleges a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendants have moved to strike the first count on the grounds that the facts alleged in the complaint do not give rise to a CUTPA violation inasmuch as the complaint alleges only an isolated private sale of real estate.

The court agrees with the plaintiffs that an allegation of a single prohibited act sufficiently states a cause of action under CUTPA. Gaskin v. Levinson, 7 CSCR 409 (April 6, 1992) (Rush, J.). However, General Statutes § 42-110b prohibits Unfair Trade Practices "in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The complaint alleges only an isolated private sale of real estate and does not allege that the defendants engaged in any trade or commerce other than the isolated sale which is the subject of the lawsuit. An isolated private sale of real estate by one not in the business of doing so is, in the opinion of the court, not encompassed within the "trade or commerce" language of General Statutes § 42-110b. The court recognizes that there is a split of authority in the Superior Court decisions but the court is in agreement with those cases holding that such an isolated sale is not encompassed by the Unfair Trade Practices Act. See such cases as Larson Skiba Associates, Inc.v. C and C Package Store, Inc., 110 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 14, 441 (January 24, 1994) (Corradino, J.); Skinner v. Till,3 Conn. L. Rptr. 481 (1991) (Teller, J.); McCarthy v. Fingelly,4 Conn. L. Rptr. 177 (1991) (Katz, J.); Bertrum v. Miller, 4 CSCR 244 (1989) (Pickett, J.); Guastamachio v. United Laboratory, 4 CSCR 414 (1989) (Walsh, J.); Basile v. Wosniak], 4 CSCR 403 (1989) (Leuba, J.); [Keeler v. Deuth, 3 CSCR 764 (1988) (Healy, J.) (for cases contra see forgoing decisions). Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is hereby granted.

Rush, J. CT Page 6538

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jakab-v-sewell-no-cv94-04-60-54s-jun-13-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack