Thomas M. Iacovacci et al. v. EG EG (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT

This case involves a home renovation project that went badly awry.   The plaintiffs sought to renovate their home at 28 Sutton Place, Stamford, Connecticut in order to allow Mrs. Iacovacci's mother to move in with the Iacovacci family.   The plaintiffs met with the defendant Guiza, owner of EG Contracting, Inc. (EG) who assured them he would oversee the substantial project personally and the job would be accomplished with high quality and expeditiously.   A written agreement was executed between the parties to complete the project for a total price of $247,650.

The project did not get completed, was not done expeditiously, and often was not of high quality.   The plaintiffs paid the defendants in excess of $255,000.   The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging breach of contract, violation of the Home Improvement Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 20-418 et seq. and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42a-110a et seq.  (CUTPA) by EG and breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and violation of CUTPA by Guiza.   EG is in default for failure to appear, and Guiza is in default for failure to plead.   A hearing in damages was held on March 24, 2010 at which time the plaintiffs and Guiza appeared, presented evidence and testimony, and were cross-examined.   In addition, the plaintiffs presented testimony from William Gilbert who heads a home renovation business.   Guiza represented himself.   The court continued the hearing until April 6, 2010 to allow Guiza additional time to review the exhibits entered into evidence and to arrange for a lawyer if he so wished.   On April 6, 2010 the plaintiffs appeared, but Guiza did not, and the hearing was concluded.

The testimony and other evidence presented by the plaintiffs, in conjunction with the defendants' defaults was sufficient to establish the claims against the defendants.   The evidence was also sufficient to prove damages in the following amounts:

payments for material and work exceeding contract price $48,539.33

valued work performed by Mr. Iacovacci to obtain

certificate of occupancy $ 3,740.00

cost to complete job and repair defective work $32,350.00

$84,629.33

The court does not award damages for alternative housing expenses since at least much of this would have been incurred anyway.

Under the CUTPA claim the court awards as damages the plaintiffs' claimed attorneys fees and costs of $2,388.34.   The court does not assess any punitive damages.   None were asked for, and at least some of the difficulties encountered in this renovation project were caused by medical problems suffered by Guiza.

Judgment may enter against both defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $87,017.67, plus costs.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Adams, Taggart D., J.