## Facts

- Six siblings inherited a family home in Westport, Connecticut, and decided to sell in 1978; they lacked sophistication and knowledge of local market values.
- The siblings engaged a listing broker, who entered a co-brokerage arrangement with two experienced local brokers (the defendants) to market the property and share commissions.
- The property was listed at $125,000, and the defendants showed it to at least one prospective buyer at that price.
- Instead of pursuing negotiations with the interested buyer or disclosing the buyer’s interest, one defendant offered to buy the property personally for $115,000.
- The plaintiffs accepted the offer believing it reflected the property’s true market value.
- The trial court found the defendants failed to disclose (1) their higher valuation of the property and (2) the existence of another prospective buyer, and misrepresented their intentions regarding the property.
- Within approximately six days after buying the property (without improving or occupying it), the defendants resold it for $160,000, realizing a $45,000 profit.
- The plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional misrepresentation.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that the defendants, acting as co-brokers, owed and breached fiduciary duties to obtain the best possible price and improperly dealt for themselves.
2. Whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendants’ nondisclosure and related conduct constituted intentional misrepresentation warranting damages.
3. Whether the trial court’s findings and conclusions were relevant to, and legally sufficient for, the causes of action pleaded.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings of breach of fiduciary duty and intentional misrepresentation.
- The court rejected challenges to the relevance and support for the trial court’s conclusions, finding them consistent with the facts and the law.
- The damages award reflecting the $45,000 differential (based on the immediate resale profit) was left intact.
- Further review was not granted.

## Legal Principles

- Real estate brokers acting for sellers owe fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, and full disclosure of material information affecting the seller’s interests.
- A broker may not engage in undisclosed self-dealing by shifting from agent to purchaser in a manner that sacrifices the principal’s interest.
- Withholding material facts—such as known buyer interest or information suggesting a materially higher value—can breach fiduciary duties and support liability.
- Intentional misrepresentation may be established by proof that a fiduciary induced a transaction through materially misleading statements or omissions, causing loss.
- On appeal, factual findings will be upheld when supported by sufficient evidence in the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and damages where co-brokers used their market position to buy a client’s property without full disclosure and promptly resold at a substantial profit, supporting findings of fiduciary breach and intentional misrepresentation.


Licari v. Blackwelder, 14 Conn. App. 46, 539 A.2d 609 (1988)