300 State, LLC v. Hanafin
140 Conn. App. 327
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff 300 State, LLC owned the property at 300/310 State Street, New London, and Hanafin occupied over 2000 square feet under a lease.
- Hanafin stopped paying rent; he paid $10,000 in January 2010 but made no further payments and vacated in July 2010.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of lease, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages including lost rent, related charges, attorney’s fees, property damage, and use and occupancy.
- At trial, plaintiff offered two billing notices totaling $47,474.99; the court reduced it by excluding a $1,072.50 charge for legal services.
- The court found Hanafin indebted for occupancy damages in the amount of $46,402.49 under both counts, and found no evidence supporting Hanafin’s special defense.
- The trial court declined to award statutory interest; Hanafin appealed, challenging the use-and-occupancy damages and the purported inconsistency between breach and quantum meruit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were use and occupancy damages properly awarded? | Hanafin breached the lease; damages supported occupancy value. | No evidence or finding of the reasonable value under § 47a-3c for use and occupancy. | Damages upheld; occupancy damages tied to possession under the lease, not § 47a-3c. |
| Is the judgment flawed for enforcing both breach and quantum meruit? | Judgment on both theories may be harmless where evidence supports either. | Breaching a contract and recovering under quantum meruit are mutually exclusive and may lead to reversible error. | No reversible error; court could properly award on both theories with single recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy, Inc. v. Remodeling, Etc., Inc., 62 Conn. App. 517 (2001) (defines lease as exclusive possessory contract; elements of breach)
- Pelletier v. Galske, 105 Conn. App. 77 (2007) (elements of breach of contract; damages)
- Schirmer v. Souza, 126 Conn. App. 759 (2011) (quantum meruit recovery when contract absent; lack of contract precondition)
- BHP Land Services, LLC v. Seymour, 137 Conn. App. 165 (2012) (unjust enrichment: recoveries apply when no valid contract)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 109 Conn. App. 731 (2008) (landlord-tenant relationship; use and occupancy context)
- 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc., 120 Conn. App. 150 (2010) (lease for use and occupancy in commercial real estate)
- MD Drilling & Blasting, Inc. v. MLS Construction, LLC, 96 Conn. App. 798 (2006) (judgment on contract and unjust enrichment; harmless error if supported)
- Harley v. Indian Spring Land Co., 123 Conn. App. 800 (2010) (alternative pleadings; harmless error if supported by evidence)
- Pleines v. Franklin Construction Co., 30 Conn. App. 612 (1993) (considers potential inconsistency but sustains judgment where supported)