Butch v. Thangamuthu
| Decision Date | 18 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 13263,13263 |
| Citation | 657 A.2d 684,37 Conn.App. 547 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ralph BUTCH v. Kandaswamy THANGAMUTHU et al. |
John S. Pinney, for appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas W. Witherington, with whom was Maura H. Horan, for appellees (defendants).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and LANDAU and HENNESSY, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendants barring the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that a mechanic's lien filed against a single lot in a subdivision is valid only with respect to services and materials furnished in the development of that lot. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. On August 3, 1988, the plaintiff, doing business as Butch & Loveland Company, entered into a contract to perform sewer and road work for an eighteen lot subdivision in Simsbury. Lot fourteen of the subdivision was sold to the defendants on April 27, 1989. The defendants have remained the owners of lot fourteen at all times relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff's work on the subdivision was completed on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, on October 5, 1989, the plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien on lot fourteen to collect the sum of $83,391.65, which was the amount that remained outstanding on his contract to perform work for the entire subdivision.
Also on October 5, 1989, the plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien against lots one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, twelve, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen, which were owned by Pheasant Farm Associates, and another mechanic's lien against lots three, ten, eleven and thirteen, which were owned by Design Development, Inc. Each of these mechanic's liens was to collect the same sum of $83,391.65 outstanding on the contract to perform work for the entire subdivision. The subdivision property, except lot fourteen, was later foreclosed on by the bank that held a first mortgage on the subdivision property. This extinguished the plaintiff's mechanic's liens, except the one against lot fourteen.
On March 6, 1990, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking to foreclose the mechanic's lien on the defendants' property. The defendants defended on the basis that, inter alia, the lien was valid only to the extent that services had been rendered or materials supplied for the benefit of lot fourteen. Following trial, the trial court agreed with the defendants on this issue. The trial court held that
On January 21, 1994, the trial court held a hearing, providing the plaintiff with an opportunity to supply evidence as to the value of services rendered and materials furnished for the benefit of lot fourteen. The plaintiff declined to offer any such evidence. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants.
When the plain language of a statute is unambiguous, we do not normally look further to determine its meaning. University of Connecticut v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 322, 328, 585 A.2d 690 (1991). General Statutes § 49-33(a) 1 identifies three situations in which a mechanic's lien can be filed. Those three situations are when materials are furnished and services are rendered for (1) the construction, raising, removal or repair of any building or any of its appurtenances, (2) the improvement of any lot, and (3) the site development or subdivision of any plot of land. In each situation, the statute specifies what property is subject to a mechanic's lien. In the first and second situations "the building, with the land on which it stands or the lot ... is subject to payment of the claim." General Statutes § 49-33(a). "[I]n the event that the materials were furnished or services were rendered in the site development or subdivision of any plot of land, then the plot of land, is subject to the payment of the claim." General Statutes § 49-33(a). Nowhere does the statute suggest that a single lot of land in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Sav. Bank v. Meadow Lakes Realty Co.
...that these findings were not clearly erroneous. Id., at 246-47, 688 A.2d 345. Therefore, relying on its holding in Butch v. Thangamuthu, 37 Conn.App. 547, 657 A.2d 684 (1995), and on the facts found by the trial court, the Appellate Court concluded that McDonald-Sharpe's mechanic's lien, wh......
-
In re Homesteads Cmty. at Newtown, LLC
...in each lien an amount commensurate with the materials furnished and services rendered to improve each individual lot.Butch v. Thangamuthu, 37 Conn. App. 547, 550 (1995). The Debtors cite Butch for the proposition that even if a blanket lien is filed, the contractor must prove "the value of......
-
New England Sav. Bank v. Meadow Lakes Realty Co.
...the three parcels of land on which the work was performed. To hold otherwise would be contrary to our holding in Butch v. Thangamuthu, 37 Conn.App. 547, 657 A.2d 684 (1995). In Butch, the plaintiff contractor performed services for an eighteen lot subdivision. After completing the work on t......
-
In re Homesteads Cmty. at Newtown, LLC
...interpretation of Pomarico could have adverse effects on Connecticut real estate development and its financing. Cf. Butch v. Thangamuthu, 37 Conn. App. 547, 550-51 (1995) (citing Pomarico, 5 Conn. App. at 111) ("[T]he filing of a blanket lien against a subdivision is theappropriate way for ......