DocketNumber: Nos. CV 99 0090651, CV 99 0090652
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3148, 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 697
Judges: ARENA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/23/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On November 10, 1999, the plaintiffs, Christopher Peltier and Lisa Peltier, filed, pursuant to General Statutes §
On January 7, 2000, the Peltiers filed a memorandum of law in support of their applications for discharge of the mechanic's liens and on January 9, 2000, Stevenson filed a brief in opposition. On January 7, 2000, Dudas filed a stipulation agreement stating that he agreed to be bound by the court's decision in the matter of Christopher Peltier, et al. v.Stevenson Lumber Company-Suffield, Inc., Docket No. CV 99 0090651.
The parties' pleadings reveal the following facts. On February 12, 1999, the Peltiers entered into an agreement with New England Fine Homebuilding, Inc. (the general contractor) for the CT Page 3149 construction of a home on the premises for $116,445.00. Stevenson and Dudas were subcontractors with respect to the work performed on the premises. In July 1999, the general contractor ceased performing work on the premises. In exchange for the work the general contractor performed, the Peltiers paid the general contractor $43,615.00 in progress payments. The Peltiers maintain that these payments covered the work performed by Stevenson and Dudas and that there is no claim by the general contractor for any additional amount due.
The general contractor did not remit any portion of the payments it received from the Peltiers to Stevenson or Dudas. Subsequently, Stevenson and Dudas filed, pursuant to General Statutes §
II. Standard:
Section
III. Discussion:
The Peltiers argue that the mechanic's liens should be discharged because under the doctrine of subrogation employed in General Statutes §
"Under Connecticut law, a subcontractor's right to enforce a mechanic's lien against a property owner is based on the doctrine of subrogation. . . ." W.G. Glenney Co. v. Bianco,
The theory of subrogation limits the recovery of subcontractors to the unpaid claims of general contractors in order to protect owners of property from making double payments to general contractors and subcontractors. See Seaman v. Climate ControlCorp. , supra,
At the hearing of this matter on December 20, 1999, the Peltiers established that they paid the general contractor $43,615.00 for the work performed on the premises. Stevenson has not provided any evidence that the general contractor has a claim for any additional amount due. Nor has Stevenson made a claim of lack of good faith on behalf the Peltiers. Consequently, because the general contractor has no claim against the Peltiers and Stevenson's rights are derivative of the general contractor's, Stevenson has no authority to enforce a mechanic's lien on the premises. As such, Stevenson has failed to establish probable cause to sustain the validity of its mechanic's lien under §
Stevenson's argument is essentially one of unjust enrichment. "Some statutes in other states justify mechanic's liens on the owner's property on the basis that the owner is otherwise unjustly enriched by the improvement of his property. . . . That is not our law. In this state, a subcontractor's right to a mechanic's lien is said to flow from his equitable entitlement to the lien which would otherwise attach in favor of the general contractor." Seaman v. Climate Control Corp. , supra,
IV. Conclusion:
For the reasons herein stated, it is concluded that the Peltiers' applications for discharge of the mechanic's liens, in Docket Nos. CV 99 0090651 and CV 99 0090652, ought to be and are hereby granted.
It is so ordered.
By the court,
Arena, J.