DocketNumber: No. CV 02 0389769
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10016, 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 680
Judges: DOHERTY, JUDGE
Filed Date: 8/9/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendants LCOR and Tocci Building Corp. have moved the court to discharge the mechanic's lien of the plaintiff for the reason that there is not probable cause to sustain the validity of such lien for the reason that, by the terms of its written contract, the plaintiff waived its rights to file such mechanic's lien against the project or the property of the defendant. The movants further maintain that the building which is the subject of this mechanic's lien is not one that is subject to the statutes upon which the plaintiff has based its claims.
The parties appeared and were heard regarding the relief sought in this motion and the court reserved decision.
Having considered the respective claims of the parties and having considered the evidence and testimony and the applicable statutes, the court makes the following findings and orders.
Section
In regard to the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs have waived their right to secure their claims against the defendants by service of a mechanic's lien by their contract (Para. 9.27), the court notes that Sec.
The movants further argue that the provisions of Chapter 742b of the Connecticut General Statutes regarding commercial construction contracts are not applicable in the instant matter for the reason that the property in question is one intended for residential occupancy or use and that such properties are expressly exempt from the provisions of the statute.
Section
The evidence and testimony (Plaintiff's Ex. 1), permits the court to find that the building is designed to contain approximately 106 individual living apartments and approximately 44 assisted living apartments, that it will consist of approximately 148,900 square feet and that it will have an approximate value of $22 million dollars. It will be situated on 9.2 acres.
The court finds that such a building, by its very nature, size and value is a commercial building and not one which qualifies for exemption from the commercial construction contracts provisions of the general statutes simply because people are going to live in it. If that interpretation were to be made, then every building which is designed as a place of residence would be exempt including multi-storey hotels, college dormitories, and prisons. That application of "residence" is not a logical or realistic one.
The building in the instant case is a commercial building and the provisions of Chapter 742b of the Connecticut General Statutes apply to the contract for its construction.
For the foregoing reasons, the application for discharge of mechanic's lien is hereby denied.
By the Court,
Joseph W. Doherty, Judge CT Page 10019