Westminster Assoc. v. Head

Full title: WESTMINSTER ASSOCIATES v. PAUL HEAD ET AL

Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven

Date published: Feb 26, 2004

2004 Ct. Sup. 2740 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

Opinion

No. CV01-0454381

February 26, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BERDON, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

The plaintiff Westminster Associates seeks to foreclose a mechanic lien it filed in the amount of $8137.47 on real property owned by the defendants Paul Head and Ehennia Head,¹ an elderly couple, for extras² on a $95,000 building contract³ for the construction of a modular home. The defendants defended the foreclosure on the grounds that the agreement for the extras was not enforceable because it failed to comply with either the requirements for a home improvement contract under General Statutes § 20-419 or a for a new home construction contract under § 20-417a, in that: (1) the agreement does not contain a notice of the owners' cancellation rights; (2) the agreement does not contain a starting date or a completion date; and (3) the agreement was not entered into by a duly registered salesman or contractor.

1 Ehennia Head died on January 12, 2002 and Paul Head, the fiduciary of her estate was substituted for her.

2 The plaintiff's claim for extras will not be discussed because it was abandoned by not briefing the issues. Burke v. Avitable, 32 Conn. App. 765, 772 (1993).

3 The $95,000 was paid in full and was not at issue before the Court.

The Court finds for the defendants on these special defenses.⁴ Nevertheless, this is not the end of the story. The defendants seek damages under their counterclaims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (CUTPA), breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of new home warranty, Gen. Stat. § 47-117. Although it is found that the defendants have proven that they are entitled to recovery under each of their counterclaims, the Court will limit its discussion to the new home warranty and CUTPA which will fully compensate them.

4 Other special defenses were asserted by the defendants, but the Court finds it is unnecessary to discuss them.

The defendants relied on the blue prints and model house that was shown to them by the plaintiff. Instead of receiving what was represented, they received defective work, an incomplete house and debris left behind by the plaintiff, all of which cost them $1794.40 to remedy.

Violating the new home warranty also constitutes a violation of CUTPA. General Statutes § 20-417g. This entitles the defendants to attorney fees and punitive damages. General Statutes § 42-110g; Kronberg Brothers v. Steele, 72 Conn. App. 53, 60 (2002).

The defendants are awarded compensatory damages of $1794.40, attorney fees of $5918.75, punitive damages in the amount of $5918.75 and costs in the amount of $2197.42, in all the sum of $15,829.32.

Berdon, Judge Trial Referee