DocketNumber: No. CV93 030 84 02
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 28
Judges: VERTEFEUILLE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/3/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
At the meeting the parties discussed landscaping certain areas of the Property so as to create an oriental effect consistent with the architecture of the house. Shanti Bithi was experienced in creating such gardens and the plaintiffs decided to engage the company to begin work. Although the plaintiffs seek an attachment against Jerome Rocherolle in addition to the corporation, the plaintiffs showed no basis, factual or legal, on which the court could find personal liability on the part of Rocherolle. The prejudgment remedy application against Rocherolle individually is therefore denied; the term "defendant" as used hereafter shall refer to the corporation only.
The landscaping work began in October 1990. There was no written agreement as to the work to be performed, the contract price for the work or the time within which the work was to be completed. As Rocherolle testified, there was no defined beginning or end. There were no landscape drawings. The plaintiffs gave Shanti Bithi a free hand to re-landscape specified areas on the Property. The work was completed in the summer of 1992. The plaintiffs paid Shanti Bithi approximately $63,000.00 for the landscaping work. In addition, the plaintiffs paid approximately $7300.00 to a third party for installation of two watering systems to water the moss gardens planted by Shanti Bithi. The plaintiffs filed the prejudgment remedy application in October 1993, seeking a prejudgment remedy to secure a return to the plaintiffs of $48,000.00 of the moneys paid to Shanti Bithi.
A prejudgment remedy shall be granted by the court when the plaintiff has shown probable cause to sustain the validity of the plaintiff's claim. Connecticut General Statutes
The plaintiff's proposed complaint sets forth three different causes of action arising from the same facts. The first claim is for breach of an oral contract. The plaintiffs contend that Shanti Bithi breached the parties' verbal agreement by overcharging the plaintiffs, by failing to complete the landscaping in a workmanlike manner, by planting shrubs and trees which later "died or have done poorly," by failing to complete the work within a reasonable time and by exceeding the estimate of $15,000.00 given by Rocherolle to the plaintiffs. In his testimony Rocherolle denied giving the plaintiffs an estimate of $15,000.00 and the plaintiffs' correspondence with Shanti Bithi during the landscaping process makes no reference at all to the $15,000.00 estimate. The court is unable to find probable cause that the plaintiffs were given an estimate of $15,000.00. As to the remaining allegations of breach of contract, the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving under the probable cause standard (a) the parties' agreement to a manner of charging, (b) an agreed upon time of completion and (c) who would bear the risk of plants and trees which later died or did poorly. Without sufficient evidence of the terms of the agreement, there is no basis on which the court can find probable cause for breach of the agreement.
The second count of plaintiffs' proposed complaint alleges that defendant violated the Home Improvement Act, Connecticut General Statutes
The plaintiffs' final claim is that the defendant's actions also constitute a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Connecticut General Statutes
The plaintiffs' application for prejudgment remedies is denied for failure to show probable cause to sustain the validity of the plaintiffs' claim.
CHRISTINE S. VERTEFEUILLE, JUDGE