DocketNumber: No. CV02-0099243S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14663
Judges: DYER, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/18/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
An evidentiary hearing was held on September 16, 2002. The court has carefully considered all of the evidence presented at hearing, as well as the memoranda subsequently submitted by counsel.
Although A.J. Shea was present at some meetings between the parties, the evidence at hearing established that the defendant negotiated directly with the plaintiff concerning all details of the landscaping work to be done at 28 Dennison Road. The evidence also established that the defendant did not work under Mr. Shea's direction or control while performing landscaping services for the plaintiff.
On July 23, 2000, the defendant provided the plaintiff with a written proposal estimating a total cost of $65,333.00 for the entire landscaping project. The work was to be performed in three phases (see Defendant's Exhibit #3). The July 23, 2000 proposal was never signed by either of the parties. The court finds that there was no signed, written contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. CT Page 14664
During the fall of 2000, the defendant completed the first phase of the work, which included the installation of a patio with granite steps. The plaintiff paid the defendant $14,288.00 for this work.
The second phase, which involved the construction of a brick walkway, the installation of ornamental iron work, and various plantings, was completed in June, 2001. The plaintiff paid the defendant $9,853.00 for the Phase II work.
On June 13, 2001, the defendant met with the plaintiff to discuss the third phase of the project. Around that time, the plaintiff was leaving for a trip to Great Britain. On June 23, 2001, the defendant faxed a revised quote for the Phase III work to the plaintiff in Great Britain. This quote was not seen by the plaintiff until approximately July 11, 2001. Some time between June 13, 2001 and July 11, 2001, the defendant began performance of the Phase III landscaping work at 28 Dennison Road without having heard back from the plaintiff.
The work was substantially completed on July 13, 2001, when the defendant received a fax from the plaintiff in which the plaintiff expressed shock at the amount of the price she had been quoted for the Phase III work. The plaintiff claimed in that communication that she had budgeted $23,000.00 for the Phase III work.
On July 24, 2001, the defendant sent an invoice to the plaintiff for the completed Phase III work (see Plaintiffs Exhibit D).
The invoice noted that it was for labor, equipment and materials to install the landscaping at the Essex residence. It also had the following notation: "(reference: 6/23 and 7/15 e-mail.)" The total bill was for $22,999.00. The plaintiff paid that sum in full to the defendant on August 13, 2001.
Although the bill which the defendant submitted to plaintiff for the Phase III work was completely paid, the defendant filed a mechanic's lien against the plaintiffs property in Essex on October 26, 2001 for the amount of $13,842.00. The defendant claims that this sum is owed to him as the unpaid amount due on the alleged contract price of $65,333.00.
Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the court does not find that the defendant functioned as a subcontractor for A.J. Shea in connection with the landscaping work at 28 Dennison Road. Although Mr. Shea "referred" the defendant to the plaintiff, the evidence at hearing proved that the defendant negotiated directly with the plaintiff, and was not under the direction or control of Mr. Shea during the subject CT Page 14665 transaction. The court finds that the defendant was a home improvement contractor as defined by Connecticut General Statute
The court also finds, based on the evidence presented, that the defendant was not licensed as a home improvement contractor in Connecticut at the time he negotiated with the plaintiff and performed the landscaping work at her property.
"[S]ummary judgment procedure . . . is an attempt to dispose of cases involving sham or frivolous issues in a manner which is speedier and less expensive for all concerned than a full-dress trial." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mac's Car City, Inc. v.American National Bank,
"In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LaFlamme v. Dallessio,
Generally, "[l]ienors are protected if they have a claim either (1) by virtue of an agreement with or the consent of the owner of the land, or (2) by the consent of some person having authority from or rightfully CT Page 14666 acting for such owner in procuring labor or materials." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Centerbrook, Architects Planners v.Laurel Nursing Services, Inc.,
"The mere granting of permission for work to be conducted on one's property has never been deemed sufficient to support a mechanic's lien against the property." Hall v. Peacock Fixture Electric Co.,
The court finds that the services provided by the defendant to the plaintiff constituted a "home improvement" within the meaning of Connecticut Home Improvement Act.
The defendant claims that he is not bound by the Connecticut Home Improvement Act since he was a subcontractor of A. J. Shea. Although subcontractors are not covered by the act, (see Meadows v. Higgins,
Home improvement contracts in Connecticut are subject to the strict provisions of Connecticut General Statute
In the Sidney case, the Supreme Court noted that ". . . absent proof of bad faith on the part of the homeowner, §
The evidence in this case does not support a finding of bad faith by the plaintiff. As established by plaintiffs Exhibit D, the plaintiff promptly paid the $22,999.00 bill which the defendant submitted to her on July 24, 2001 for the Phase III work. She also made timely payments on the earlier invoices submitted by the defendant.
In order for the defendant's mechanic's lien to be valid, the defendant must be in compliance with the statutory mandates of the Connecticut Home Improvement Act. The court has found that the defendant was not a licensed home improvement contractor at the time he entered into the agreement with the plaintiff. The court has also found that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a written home improvement contract in compliance with the provisions of Connecticut General Statute §
Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to totally discharge the defendant's CT Page 14668 mechanic's lien is hereby GRANTED.1
SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
___________________, J. DYER