Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 31447.
Decision Date | 18 January 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 31447.,31447. |
Citation | 126 Conn.App. 94,11 A.3d 165 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | WALPOLE WOODWORKERS, INC. v. Sid MANNING. |
David L. Gussak, Farmington, for the appellant (defendant).
Brent M. Stratton, for the appellee (plaintiff).
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and ALVORD and DUPONT, Js.
The defendant, Sid Manning, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Walpole Woodworkers, Inc., in this action for the balance due on a contract to install a fence at the defendant's residence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) the defendant's conduct amounted to bad faith, (2) the plaintiff was entitled to full recovery under the parties' contract, including interest, attorney's fees and costs, and (3) the defendant's attempt to rescind the contract and his demand for recoupment of sums paid to the plaintiff were unavailing.1 The primaryissue to beresolved is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover, pursuant to the contract, interest, attorney's fees and costs, despite the court's finding that the plaintiff violated some provisions of the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 20-429,2 because of the defendant's bad faith as found by the court. We conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the work performed but is not entitled to recover, under the "bad faith" exception, additional damages provided for in the contract when the contract is otherwise unenforceable due to the plaintiff's violation of the act. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court only insofar as it awarded interest, attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. By complaint filed May 14, 2007, the plaintiff alleged that it had performed all of its obligations under a contract with the defendant but that the defendant had not satisfied his obligation to pay for the services rendered. The plaintiff sought to recover money damages, past due balances for services rendered, attorney's fees, interest and costs as provided for in the contract, and such other relief as the court deemed proper. The defendant filed two special defenses alleging that the plaintiff had failed to perform its work in a workmanlike manner, thereby breaching the contract, and that it violated the act in certain enumerated ways. The defendant also filed a counterclaim. In its response to the special defenses and counterclaim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had filed his defenses pursuant to the act in bad faith.
Pursuant to Practice Book § 23-53,3 the case was referred to an attorney fact finder, who heard evidence on the matter on January 26 and February 9, 2009, and, who, on April 20, 2009, made the findings of fact, which follow. The parties enteredinto a written contract, pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to install a fence and the defendant agreed to pay $22,318. At the time the defendant executed the contract, he paid a deposit of $11,000. The work was substantiality completed in November, 2004. In May, 2005, the plaintiff sought payment for the balance owed. The defendant refused, stating that his small dog could escape under the fence. The plaintiff designed a free "fix" by adding additional fencing around the bottom of the fence, but the defendant still refused to pay the balance due. In January,2006, the plaintiff sent the defendant a written demand for payment under the contract, including attorney's fees, interest and costs as provided therein and commenced litigation thereafter.
The fact finder found that the contract did not comply with the act pursuant to § 20-429(a)(7).4 Nonetheless, the fact finder found the issues in favor of the plaintiff, including a finding that the defendant invoked the act in bad faith, and recommended that the court render judgment for the balance due, as well as for attorney's fees, costs and interest per the contract. The defendant objected to the court's acceptance of the findings of fact made by the attorney fact finder. See Practice Book § 23-57. After a hearing on the objection, the court sustained the objection only as to the attorney's fees and reduced the amount of attorney's fees awarded. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the fact finder's report, as modified by orders of the court. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
In each of his claims, the defendant challenges both the factual conclusions reached by the attorney fact finder and the factual and legal conclusions of the trial court. We set forth our standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Lewis v. Frazao Building Corp., 115 Conn.App. 324, 329, 972 A.2d 284 (2009).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 329-30, 972 A.2d 284. With the foregoing in mind, we now turn to the defendant's specific claims.
We first address the claim that the defendant's conduct did not amount to bad faith. The defendant maintains that there was evidence before the fact finder thathe disputed the quality of the plaintiff's work, which he claims is insufficient to constitute bad faith. The plaintiff claims, in response, that the facts found show the defendant's bad faith intent to avoid paying the balance due on the contract without any defense to payment. We agree with the plaintiff and uphold the trial court's finding of bad faith.
We set forth the applicable principles of law. The act, pursuant to § 20-429(a), provides that no home improvement contract shall be valid or enforceable against a homeowner unless it meets certain enumerated criteria. (Citation omitted.) Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, 247 Conn. 218, 231, 720 A.2d 235 (1998). New England Custom Concrete, LLC v. Carbone, 102 Conn.App. 652, 660-61, 927 A.2d 333 (2007).
In Lucien v. McCormick Construction, LLC, 122 Conn.App. 295, 296, 998 A.2d 250 (2010), this court reversed a trial court's ruling, which had concluded that a homeowner had invoked the act in bad faith. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lucien v. McCormick Construction, LLC, supra, at 300, 998 A.2d 250. In Lucien, the trial court had concluded that the contractor had met its burden to establish the homeowner's bad faith, reasoning that the homeowner's representation by counsel throughout the negotiation processand the homeowner's failure to raise the noncompliance with the act until the defendant raised a claim of nonpayment established bad faith. Id., at 301, 998 A.2d 250. This court concluded that there was "simply ... nothing in the stipulated facts that can legally and logically support the court's conclusion that the plaintiff acted with a dishonest purpose in claiming that the defendant violated the act." Id., at 302-303, 998 A.2d 250.
In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robbins v. Physicians for Women's Health, LLC, No. 31816.
...“would, in effect, award them an unwarranted windfall that the legislature could not have intended”); Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 126 Conn.App. 94, 110, 11 A.3d 165, cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 940, 17 A.3d 476 (2011); Thomas v. Dept. of Developmental Services, 297 C......
-
Burns v. Adler
...the claim that the bad faith exception has been legislatively abrogated pursuant to its decision in Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning , 126 Conn.App. 94, 104, 11 A.3d 165 (2011), aff'd, 307 Conn. 582, 57 A.3d 730 (2012), in which it had held to the contrary. Burns v. Adler , supra, at 79......
-
Burns v. Adler
...faith exception may encompass a broad variety of unscrupulous homeowner conduct. I find instructive Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 126 Conn. App. 94, 101-102, 11 A.3d 165 (2011), aff'd, 307 Conn. 582, 57 A.3d 730 (2012), in which the Appellate Court upheld a finding of bad faith in a......
-
Robbins v. Physicians for Women's Health, LLC
...''would, in effect, award them an unwarranted windfall that the legislature could not have intended''); Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 126 Conn. App. 94, 110, 11 A.3d 165, cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 940, 17 A.3d 476 (2011); Thomas v. Dept. of Developmental Services, 29......
-
Business Litigation: 2011 in Review
...A.2d 729 (1993). 216. 300 Conn. 774, 17 A.3d 40 (2011). 217. Id. at 806-07. 218. Id. at 796-97. 219. Id. at 795. 220. Id. at 798. 221. 126 Conn. App. 94, 11 A.3d 165, cert. granted, 300 Conn. 940, 17 A.3d 476 (2011). 222. CONN GEN. STAT. § 20-429. 223. CONN GEN. STAT. § 20-429(f). 224. 126 ......