SR Holdings I, LLC v. Joseph Cannavo et al.

Summary

The Connecticut Appellate Court consolidated appeals concerning alleged fraudulent transfers of two Greenwich properties under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal from the remittitur for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict, holding that the properties were assets and that no reasonably equivalent value had been exchanged.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff that accepts a remittitur cannot thereafter appeal the propriety of that accepted remittitur; the plaintiff's amended appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The plaintiff's original appeal was not properly before the court because it was filed before the trial court fully resolved the damages claims and rendered judgment in the plaintiff's favor.
3. The plaintiff's amended appeal remained pending because it was filed from the later supplemental order and judgment, from which an original appeal properly could have been taken.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the verdict because the jury reasonably could find that the Greenwich properties were assets under CUFTA and that valid liens did not exceed their value.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the verdict because the jury reasonably could find that Blue Mountain Partners furnished $1,745,000 in consideration for properties worth $2,490,000 and that Western Greenwich Holdings did not receive reasonably equivalent value.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of the trial court's remittitur deprived the Appellate Court of subject matter jurisdiction to review the propriety of that remittitur.
2. Whether the plaintiff's original appeal was jurisdictionally defective because it was filed before the trial court had rendered a final judgment.
3. Whether the plaintiff's amended appeal remained pending after dismissal of the original appeal under Practice Book § 61-9.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the Greenwich properties were not assets under CUFTA because valid liens allegedly exceeded their value.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that Blue Mountain Partners provided reasonably equivalent value for the transferred properties.

Disposition

other