Keith Murphy v. Sidney Manning et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff brought this action claiming damages arising out of the defendants' breach of their duty as real estate agents.   The court heard evidence on April 18, 2013, and June 20, 2013.   The first count sounds in breach of duty and the second count claims violation of CUTPA, based on the allegations in the first count.

The plaintiff alleges that he made an offer to purchase property known as “50 Inverness Lane, Middletown, Connecticut,” which was listed by the defendants.   Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that on or about August 19, 2009, after being informed verbally by the defendant Sidney Manning that his earlier offer of $70,000 was not acceptable, the plaintiff prepared, signed, scanned and emailed Manning a cash offer for the subject property in the amount of $75,000.   The plaintiff further alleges that although Manning represented that the defendants conveyed the offer to the owner of the property, the property was subsequently sold for the price of $72,000.   The evidence established that the property was sold to an entity controlled by Manning.   The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants breached their duty as a real estate agent in failing to convey the $75,000 offer to the owner of the property.   The plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the defendants' actions, he suffered damages because he was unable to develop the property for a profit.

An essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action is proof that he did in fact make an offer of $75,000 for the property.   The court finds that the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proof on this issue.   This finding is based on the following facts.   The first offer for $70,000 was transmitted by an email, dated June 19, 2009.   A forwarded email, plaintiff's exhibit 2, identifies the June 19, 2009 email, entitled “Offer for 50 Inverness Lane,” and includes an attachment, named “20090619125809437.pdf.” The original and forwarded emails were both sent by the plaintiff's assistant, Brenda Coleman, from the email address brenda@signandpack.com.

The plaintiff testified that the second offer for $75,000, plaintiff's exhibit 3B, was also sent by email, plaintiff's exhibit 3A. An examination of exhibit 3A shows that an email was sent by Coleman, from her email address, to Manning on August 19, 2009.   The subject line states:  “50 Inverness–Offer.”   The email does not contain any form of attachment to indicate that an actual offer was transmitted.   Coleman did not testify at the trial.   The plaintiff testified that he also faxed the offer to Manning;  however, the plaintiff did not submit a fax confirmation sheet into evidence.   The plaintiff testified that such a sheet is not provided by his fax device.   Manning testified that he never received an offer from the plaintiff in the amount of $75,000.   The plaintiff did not present sufficient credible evidence to establish that an offer of $75,000 was actually transmitted to Manning.

Judgment may enter for the defendants on both counts of the complaint.

Domnarski, J.

Domnarski, Edward S., J.