Vaughn Boudreau v. Kenneth Boudreau et al. (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE ORDER FOR ARTICULATION

On September 10, 2008, the Appellate Court granted the defendants-appellants' motion for review of denial of articulation and ordered this court to act on the merits of the defendants' May 12, 2008 motion for articulation.

On March 24, 2008, the court, after hearing evidence, filed a memorandum of decision.   Based on the credible facts and circumstances presented, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff on his summary process action.   As to the counterclaims, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaims of constructive trust.   The defendants' separate counterclaim for unjust enrichment is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice.

The court asserts that the findings of fact contained in its memorandum of decision support a finding of the existence of a rental agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants.

The court finds the testimony of the plaintiff, Vaughn Boudreau, credible in that the defendant, Kenneth Boudreau, took possession of the premises pursuant to an oral lease.   The court further credits the testimony of Diane Boudreau who testified that the parties' “arrangement” constituted a rental agreement between them.   The court finds the testimony of the defendant not to be credible and, further, that the facts presented by the defendant to be contradictory.   The defendant has conceded that he made periodic payments to the plaintiff and, based upon the facts, the court finds them to constitute rent.

The court finds credible evidence that the parties entered into an oral rental agreement, and, pursuant to this agreement, the defendants were to pay the monthly mortgage payment in exchange for the use of the premises.   The defendants are found to have failed to make the required payments.   Accordingly, having found that there existed a rental agreement and that the defendants are in default of this agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises.

The defendant, Kenneth Boudreau, testified that the total cost of his labor totaled $157,000.   Kenneth conceded that he never expected payment, never presented a bill to the plaintiff, and, as noted in footnote 1, “․ no documentary proof substantiating this testimony was submitted to the court.”

The court further finds that the defendants have not carried their burden of establishing an equitable duty on the part of the plaintiff to convey an interest in the property to the defendant.   The court finds that evidence on the existence of any agreement to that effect was severely contradictory.

As this court decided in its memorandum of decision filed on March 25, 2008, it was unable to resolve the defendants' counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, as it is outside the scope of a summary process action.   “[E]quitable defenses and counterclaims implicating the right to possession are available in a summary process proceeding.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted;  emphasis added.)  Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 225 Conn. 771, 777, 627 A.2d 386 (1993) (e.g., the equitable doctrine against forfeitures, laches and specific performance).   Counterclaims for money damages are not permitted.  Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57, 70, 584 A.2d 458 (1991) (“we affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim to the extent that it claimed damages, because its prayers for monetary relief did not implicate the right to possession”).

Therefore, although the court found that while Vaughn may very well have been unjustly enriched by Kenneth's uncompensated contributions to the construction of the property, the court held that this issue was not properly before the court in a summary process action.   Despite the defendant- appellant's allegation that this finding was somehow ambiguous, upon a proper and thorough reading of the court's decision, it clearly was not.

Based on the facts and the fair and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff on his summary process action.   As to the counterclaims, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaims of constructive trust.   The defendants' separate counterclaim for unjust enrichment is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice on the grounds that it sought money damages and such a claim is not proper in a summary process action.

BY THE COURT

MARANO, J.

Marano, Richard M., J.