Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Malon Construction, LLC v. Bugaj Contractors Company, LLC
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Malon Construction, LLC, seeks a judgment for $18,216.30 against defendant Bugaj Contractors Company, LLC.1 The plaintiff claims this sum is owed for trim work, millwork, and materials that the plaintiff provided the defendant pursuant to an oral contract entered into by the parties in connection with an extensive home renovation project.
The defendant contends that what it has already paid the plaintiff, $45,000.00, is all that the plaintiff is entitled to receive under the terms of the parties' contract. The defendant further contends the plaintiff's claim is barred by a three-year statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below, this court finds the issues in favor of the plaintiff.
In November of 2007, Eric Malon, who is the principal in Malon Construction, LLC, responded to a request from Gregory Bugaj, who is the principal in defendant Bugaj Contractors Company, LLC, to submit a bid for trim and millwork on a renovation project that was being done by Bugaj Contractors Company on a large home located at 159 North Cedar Road in Fairfield. Mr. Malon has been in the trim and millwork business for approximately twenty-five years. Mr. Malon met Mr. Bugaj at the construction site, discussed what needed to be done, and spent two to three hours examining the home and taking measurements. A few days later, after Mr. Malon had reviewed his notes, he gave Mr. Bugaj a quote over the telephone. Mr. Malon offered to do the trim and millwork for $55,000. This price included millwork on a cherry library.
Mr. Bugaj's response to Mr. Malon's quote was “when can you begin?” Today, Mr. Bugaj's recollection of the terms of the oral contract differs from Mr. Malon's recollection. Mr. Bugaj recalls the initial agreement as being $33,000 for all trim and millwork, including materials.
This court concludes that Mr. Malon's recollection of the terms of the oral contract is accurate. His recollection is corroborated by the extensive trim and millwork he did on the renovation project.
Mr. Malon began his work in November of 2007. The home that was being renovated is owned by Tara and Samuel Hawley. By the time the renovation project was completed in 2008, the Hawleys had paid defendant Bugaj Contractors $673,390.47 for the renovation. Mr. Malon's work was extensive. For example, he installed a custom-built book case and seat in a bedroom, installed cherry paneling and a coffered ceiling in the “cherry library,” built cabinets for the cherry library, installed wood paneling along a stairway, a hallway, and in the dining room, installed twenty to twenty-five doors, trimmed the doorways, and trimmed approximately thirty window openings. Mr. Malon, at Mr. Bugaj's request, purchased materials for the library from Midland Sales, Inc. The materials cost $8,956.33. See Exhibits 15 and 18.
Mr. Malon completed his work in December of 2007. In January of 2008, he faxed Mr. Bugaj a bill for work and materials. See Exhibit 5. The invoice total for labor and materials was $64,145. The charge for labor was $54,260. The charge for materials was $9,885. At the present time, Mr. Malon can not verify whether an item listed on the invoice for $928.70 was used at the site. Thus, the correct charge for materials is $8,956.30 The correct total for labor and materials is $63,216.30. In light of Mr. Malon's experience and the work that he performed on the renovation project, this charge is fair and in accordance with the contractual agreement.
The defendant, Bugaj Contractors Company, LLC, has made two payments to the plaintiff. It paid the plaintiff $35,000 in January of 2008 and $10,000 in March of 2008. Thus, the balance due is $18,216.30.
The defendant contends the plaintiff's claim is barred by the three-year limitation set forth in General Statutes § 52–576. The plaintiff commenced this lawsuit more than three years after its cause of action accrued. The defendant's argument that section 52–576 applies is based on his assertion the plaintiff has not fully performed its contractual obligations. A lack of complete performance would make the contract an “executory” contract that would be governed by the three-year provision. This court, however, has found the plaintiff fully performed its contractual obligations by the end of December of 2007. All that remains to be done is for the defendant to pay the plaintiff for its services. Hence, the oral contract is an “executed” contract that is governed by the six-year limitation period set forth in General Statutes § 52–581. See John H. Kolb & Sons, Inc. v. G & L Excavating, 76 Conn. 599, 609–10, 821 A.2d 774 (2003). The plaintiff timely sued.
An award of prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37–3a is appropriate; see Killion v. Davis, 69 Conn.App. 366, 375–77, 793 A.2d 1237 (2002). The money was due and payable as of April 1, 2008. This fact would have been easily ascertainable by defendant upon due inquiry and investigation. Interest is a proper element of damages in this case. Mr. Malon's unchallenged testimony is that in January of 2008 Mr. Bugaj stated that payment would not be made because of a dispute Mr. Bugaj was having with a builder with whom Mr. Malon was associated on another building project.
Based on the foregoing, judgment enters in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for $18,216.30 together with interest of $10,474.35 (calculated from April 1, 2008 to January 1, 2014) for a total award of $28,690.65.
THIM, J.T.R.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. A claim against a related defendant, Bugaj Construction Company, LLC was withdrawn.. FN1. A claim against a related defendant, Bugaj Construction Company, LLC was withdrawn.
Thim, George N., J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CV126026873S
Decided: January 15, 2014
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)