McCutcheon Building and Remodeling, Inc. v. Eva Gurewitz (2016)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This vigorously contested building contract matter came to this court by Complaint of McCutcheon Building and Remodeling, LLC (Plaintiff) dated September 25, 2013, alleging, in three counts, Breach of Contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Eva Gurewitz (defendant).  The plaintiff claims that the defendant has not fully paid for repairs and improvements it caused to be made to the defendant's property at 460 Montauk Avenue, New London, Connecticut (the property).

The defendant, who is self-represented, filed an Answer with the court on March 13, 2014, in which she neither admitted nor denied the allegations of the complaint but claimed the workmanship of the plaintiff's repairs was faulty causing leaks in the new roof and alleges that the plaintiff's officer has caused her property to be placed in foreclosure.  The allegations of the complaint are considered by rule as admitted.  P.B. 10–19.  In its Reply the plaintiff denied the allegations of the defendant.

After various continuances, the case came to trial in this court at New London on March 15, 2016 at which the plaintiff was represented by counsel and the defendant was pro se.  The plaintiff's owner testified as to the plaintiff's claims about the relationship and arrangements with the defendant and the work which was performed and the materials used.  Several photographs were introduced showing the property before, during and after the plaintiff's work was done.  The defendant testified on her own behalf but offered no other witnesses.  Briefs were due March 29, 2016.  The plaintiff filed a brief.  The defendant did not.

Facts

From the admissible evidence presented at trial, including reasonable and logical inferences from the same, and taking into account the court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, the following facts are found.

At all time relevant to this case the plaintiff was a duly licensed home improvement contractor.  The owner of the company was Ethan McCutcheon (contractor) who was in charge of the work on the property.  The contractor had many years of experience in the building trades and was at all relevant times, fully familiar with the applicable building codes and requirements relating to the work to be performed at the property.

The defendant had a bad experience with a prior contractor who attempted to do repairs on the property with a poor result.  A financial arrangement made by the defendant relating to a “reverse mortgage” she had in some phase of completion, required her to make certain repairs to her property.  She received the plaintiff's name from a church member who recommended it.  The plaintiff reviewed the property and was asked to present a proposal.  (The plaintiff had previously accomplished a small job for the defendant for which it was paid $300.00.  No dispute was made with regard to that job which is not involved in this case.)

On August 31, 2012, the first proposal was submitted and signed.  Later on September 21, 2012, a second proposal, which was slightly modified, was submitted and signed by both parties.  The second proposal constituted the contract between the parties and set forth in some detail the work to be done and the materials to be used.  The plaintiff was to be paid $18,750.00 for the work under the contract, with $9,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance upon completion of the work.  Within a few days of receiving a payment of $9,375.00 on September 14, 2012, the plaintiff began the work.

All of the work called for under the contract was completed by the plaintiff's workers.  The work was done in a manner consistent with industry standards and in compliance with building code requirements.  No complaints were made by the defendant during or immediately after completion of the work concerning the quality of the work.  The defendant herself did not dispute that the work called for under the contract was done by the plaintiff's workers.  She had expressed satisfaction with the work and requested the plaintiff to perform additional work after the contract work had been completed.

The issues raised by the defendant during the trial related to moisture causing paint peeling in various areas of her house and claimed leaking from somewhere in the roof or flashing in unspecified areas.  The defendant also did not like the way the new windows protruded from the face of the building.  The defendant was unable to present evidence admissible, under the rules of court, to support her position.  Up to the time of trial the defendant had not been willing to admit the plaintiff's workers to enter into the interior of her property to examine for the alleged leaking roof.  The plaintiff's general practice and policy was to undertake repairs for any work done which was in any way defective.

After the completion of the work called for under the contract the plaintiff was asked to perform additional work by the defendant which related to repointing of the chimney, replacing of rotten soffits and framing and installing flashing, cedar shingles, gutters and painting.  However, no written contract was signed by the defendant for such work.  The defendant did not dispute the work was done.  It is partially shown in some of the photographs in evidence.  The plaintiff set forth the extent of the work and the reasonable value of the same in Invoices prepared after the work and in anticipation of trial.  (Plaintiff's Exhibits 24 and 25.)  The total value of that extra work is $4,630.00.  The defendant has received the benefit of that work on her property.

The plaintiff paid for the materials and labor necessary for the completion of the work under the contract and also under the additional work requested to be performed after the completion of the contract work.

The defendant has refused and neglected to make payment to the plaintiff for either the contract balance or the extra work requested and performed thereafter although demand has been made.

The Law

“The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages.”  Chiulli v. Zola, 97 Conn.App. 699, 706–07, 905 A.2d 1236, 1243 (Conn.App.2006).

“Plaintiffs seeking recovery for unjust enrichment must prove (1) that the defendants were benefitted, (2) that the defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiff's detriment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Jo–Ann Stores, Inc. v. Property Operating Co., LLC, 91 Conn.App. 179, 194, 880 A.2d 945 (2005).  “Unjust enrichment is a very broad and flexible doctrine that has as its basis the principle that it is contrary to equity and good conscience for a defendant to retain a benefit that has come to him at the expense of the plaintiff.”  Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 409, 766 A.2d 416 (2001), on appeal after remand, 80 Conn.App. 436, 835 A.2d 491 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 920, 846 A.2d 881 (2004).  “Unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are forms of the equitable remedy of restitution by which a plaintiff may recover the benefit conferred on a defendant in situations where no express contract has been entered into by the parties.”  Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn.App. 375, 385, 527 A.2d 1210 (1987).  Malley v. Spada, No. MMX CV–10–5007969, 2012 WL 1511400, at *2 (Conn.Super.CT. Apr. 12, 2012).

Plaintiff's Quantum Meruit Count:  “Quantum meruit is the remedy available to a party when the trier of fact determines that an implied contract for services existed between the parties, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of services rendered.  Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn.App. 375, 383, 527 A.2d 1210, 1215 (Conn.App.1987).

Discussion

Applying the law to the facts found the court concludes that the plaintiff has sustained its burden of proof with regard to the first count, in that the parties entered into a written contract for work on the defendant's property, the plaintiff performed its part of the contract and the defendant refused and neglected to pay for the balance due of $9,375.00.  With respect to the second count the plaintiff has established that the value of the work under the contract was the contract price and that the defendant's property received the benefit of the same and paid for only about one-half of the same.  Also, the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant requested and received an additional $4,630.00 in value added to her property from the additional work performed by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant with the expectation of being paid the reasonable value of the same.  The court finds that there was an implied contract for the additional work and that the defendant owes the plaintiff $4,630.00 for the same.

On the third count of Quantum Meruit, the court finds, as above, that the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that an implied contract existed under which the defendant is obligated to pay the reasonable value of the labor and materials added to her property in the amount of $4,630.00.

Accordingly, judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the total amount of $14,005.00 plus costs.

Robert C. Leuba, J.T.R.

Leuba, Robert C., J.T.R.