SR Holdings I, LLC v. Cannavo

── SR Holdings I, LLC v. Cannavo ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  SR Holdings I, LLC v. Cannavo SR HOLDINGS I, LLC v. JOSEPH CANNAVO ET AL. (AC 46673) (AC 46880) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Suarez, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment ordering the remit- titur of the damages the jury had awarded to the plaintiff in connection with its claims of fraudulent transfer relating to certain real property that was formerly owned by the defendant W Co. and transferred to the defendant B Co. The plaintiff claimed that the court had abused its discretion in reducing the award. W Co., B Co. and their defendant managing members separately appealed from the trial court’s judgment, following its denial of their motion to set aside the verdict in its entirety. The defendants claimed that the court abused its discretion because, inter alia, B Co. provided reasonably equiva- lent value to W Co. in exchange for the transferred real property. This court consolidated the appeals. Held: This court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdic- tion, as the plaintiff accepted the remittitur and did not avail itself of the opportunity to decline the remittitur and pursue an appeal from the trial court’s order pursuant to statute (§ 52-228a). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict, as the jury could have reasonably found from the evidence in the record that the value of the liens encumbering the transferred properties did not exceed the total value of the properties, that the trans- ferred properties therefore were not overleveraged and, instead, constituted assets under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (§ 52-552a et seq.), and that there was not reasonably equivalent value exchanged for the transferred properties because the total consideration furnished by B Co. was less than the market value of the properties. Argued January 7—officially released June 9, 2026 Procedural History Action, in each case, to recover damages for, inter alia, fraudulent conveyance of real property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Povodator, J., granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant Provident Bank; thereafter, the court, Genuario, J., consolidated the cases; subsequently, the cases were tried to the jury before Hon. Kenneth B. Povodator, judg