DocketNumber: No. CV 96-0154047
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4579
Judges: LEWIS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/9/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. The defendant also asserted a special defenses that it had paid the plaintiff the sum of $5,000 as an accord and satisfaction for anything owed to the plaintiff.
Pursuant to General Statutes §
The fact finder concluded on the basis of the above findings of fact that: (1) the defendant benefitted [benefited] from the work performed either directly by the plaintiff or through Murace; and (2) the defendant owes the plaintiff $11,719 ($8,374, plus $1,720, plus $1,625).
The defendant filed an objection to the fact finder's report, as authorized by Practice Book § 546H, claiming that certain facts found by the fact finder should be deleted or modified, and that certain facts should be added to the report. The defendant also claimed that (1) it had no obligation to pay the plaintiff anything because all work performed by the plaintiff was included in the original contract with Cardinal; (2) the work claimed by CT Page 4581 the plaintiff was actually performed by the subcontractor, Murace, and that the plaintiff had no right to collect any funds owed by the defendant to Murace; and (3) the plaintiff was paid $35,000, including $5,000 by the defendant, and was not entitled to any more money.
When reviewing reports of fact finders, "the court may . . . (1) render judgment in accordance with the finding of facts; (2) reject the finding of facts and remand the case to the fact-finder who originally heard the matter for a rehearing on all or part of the finding of facts; (3) reject the finding of facts and remand the mater to another fact-finder for rehearing; (4) reject the finding of facts and revoke the reference; (5) remand the case to the fact-finder who originally heard the matter for a finding on an issue raised in an objection which was not addressed in the original finding of facts; or (6) take any other action the court may deem appropriate." Practice Book § 546J.
"A reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of either administrative agencies . . . or attorney trial referees." (Citations omitted.)Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc.,
The findings of fact in a contract action should be overturned "only when they are clearly erroneous." A fact-finder's recommendations should be accepted when "there is nothing that is unreasonable, illogical or clearly erroneous in the findings of the fact finder and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc.,
supra,
Additionally, "[g]reat deference is given to the trial court's findings because the trial court is responsible for CT Page 4582 weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses." Beizer v. Goepfert,
Based upon a review of the report, the court finds that the fact-finder's conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $11,719 is supported by the subordinate facts that she found.1 The fact-finder found that the defendant paid $5,000 to the plaintiff on November 21, 1994, representing the balance due on the contract between the plaintiff and Cardinal, and there was an absence of accord and satisfaction language. To the contrary, the accompanying note stated: "In order not to keep you waiting for the full balance, we'll send you a check for the first $5,000.00. Additional payments will follow immediately after approval."2
Furthermore, the fact-finder determined that the extra work performed by the plaintiff was done while Cardinal was still working at the subject premises, and that the defendant knew said work was being performed, and never objected to the invoices sent by the plaintiff.
The fact-finder also ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on its complaint because its extra work including that performed by Murace, was approved by the defendant's agent and general contractor, Cardinal, and the defendant never expressed any dissatisfaction with such work. All of these factual findings, which cannot be disturbed by the court, lead logically and legally to the conclusion that the defendant benefitted [benefited] from extra work performed by the plaintiff and is therefore obliged to pay the plaintiff based on the second count of the complaint alleging unjust enrichment.3
Accordingly, the report of the fact-finder is accepted and judgment enters in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $11,719. Costs are to be taxed by the office of the chief clerk in accordance with General Statutes §
So Ordered. CT Page 4583
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 9th day of April, 1998.
William B. Lewis, Judge