DocketNumber: No. CV 98 0581117
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11324
Judges: PECK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/19/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Specifically, with respect to count two, fraudulent concealment, Candlewood argues that paragraph ten of the second count of its third CT Page 11325 amended complaint alleges: "The individual Defendants breached their duties of care and loyalty to the Plaintiff in one or more of the following ways: . . . e. By fraudulently concealing the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of warranty against the Leaska Condominium Corporation from the Executive Board." Thus, Candlewood concludes that it has alleged fraudulent concealment.
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, however, "the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rivera v. Double A Transportation.Inc.,
Upon reconsideration, the court concludes that despite requests from this court for Candlewood to proffer some evidence supporting it s claim that there is a genuine issue of material fact, Candlewood presented no evidence from which it could be inferred that the Leaskas misrepresented the facts with the intent necessary to constitute fraudulent concealment. See Connell v. Colwell,
Candlewood also asks this court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment with respect to count three, breach of warranty under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), General Statutes §§
Contrary to Candlewood's assertion, this court carefully considered the CIOA issue presented in Willow Springs wherein the court held that the definition of purchaser contained in §
In Willow Springs, the defendant, Seventh BRT Development Corporation, argued that "the last of the units was sold to a purchaser when, in 1987, it transferred ninety-two units to BRT Property Group, and that this action, which was filed more than three years later, in 1993, is therefore time barred." (Emphasis added.) Willow Springs CondominiumAssn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., supra,
In accordance with the holding of Willow Springs, the statute of limitations with respect to the claims made in the present case began to run "when a unit for whose use that element is allocated is first sold to a bona fide purchaser." Id., 31 n. 26. The common element at issue in this case is the foundation of Building Six. Candlewood judicially admits that "Building Number 6 within the condominium was completed on or about September 1987, and was first used by a bona fide purchaser on or about October 1987." (Third Amended Complaint, Count Three, ¶ 6.) Moreover, the affidavit of William J. LaMontagne, the owner of Unit 65 in Building Six, is consistent with this admission as it states in "October 1987, shortly after my wife and I purchased 65 Candlewood Circle . . . we observed a crack in the west foundation wall." (LaMontagne Affidavit, February 10, 2000, ¶ 2). Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Unit 65 is a unit for whose use the foundation of Building Six is allocated. There is also no dispute that it was first used by a bona fide purchaser on or about October 1987." (Third Amended Complaint, Count Three, ¶ 6.) Therefore, pursuant to
Finally, the breach of warranty claims at issue in Willow Springs were for chimneys, decks, roofs and vents in units purchased by BRT Property Group and then sold to individual purchasers within three years prior to the commencement of the action. There is no allegation or evidence in the present case that Annemarie Leaska, as a dealer, purchased any units in Building Number 6, thus preventing the statute of limitation for claims made regarding common elements for the use of these units from running until the units are or were sold to individual purchasers.
Candlewood, therefore, had three years from October 1987 to bring this cause of action under §
Peck, J.