Absolute Plumbing & Heating, LLC v. Edelman
146 Conn. App. 383
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Consolidated actions by Absolute Plumbing and JR Remodeling to foreclose mechanic’s liens on Edelman’s Westport home after termination of Schott Construction contract.
- Schott acted as general contractor under a contract initially priced at $454,341.80, later modified by construction summaries increasing price.
- Edelman terminated Schott; subsequent work was performed by DeFelice and Bella Cucina, with notices of lien filed by subcontractors.
- Referee awarded damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees to the subcontractors; issues included applicability of the Home Improvement Act and accuracy of contract prices and completion.
- Trial court accepted referee’s findings on contract price modification and substantial completion; attorney’s fees were awarded and later challenged on pro rata allocation and joint representation grounds.
- Court remanded for further proceedings on attorney’s fees due to the joint representation agreement and allocation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the Home Improvement Act | Meets subcontractor status; act not applicable to subcontractors | Act should govern contract validity and lien enforceability | Act applicability discussed; subcontractors not barred from recovery; act not a bar to lien recovery for subcontractors |
| Contract price at termination and enforceability of liens | Modified contract price ($605,458.83) governs unpaid balance | Original contract price should apply due to invalid modifications under the act | Referee’s modified price is not clearly erroneous; lienable debt established |
| Substantial completion of work | Evidence supports substantial completion under contract terms | Record shows substantial noncompletion; damages overstated | Trial court properly adopted referee’s finding of substantial completion |
| Attorney’s fees and joint representation | § 52-249(a) authorizes fees; joint representation agreement supports allocation | Joint representation and fee allocation improperly shift fees; Schott’s lien should affect pro rata | Court abused discretion in fee allocation; remanded for recalculation consistent with opinion |
| Waiver and pleading of the act as a defense | Act asserted and objected to at trial; not properly pleaded but evidence allowed | Act not properly pleaded as a defense; waiver issues | Act should have been pleaded as a special defense; waiver issue resolved for appeal; otherwise addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- ProBuild East, LLC v. Poffenberger, 136 Conn. App. 184 (Conn. App. 2012) (subcontractors not bound by act; act applies to general contractors)
- Brett Stone Painting & Maintenance, LLC v. New England Bank, 143 Conn. App. 671 (Conn. App. 2013) (need for special defenses to raise act defenses; waiver considerations)
- Johnson Electric Co. v. Salce Contracting Associates, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 342 (Conn. App. 2002) (appellate review of referee findings; credibility and factual review limits)
- Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 96 Conn. App. 608 (Conn. App. 2006) (cost of completion method in mechanic’s lien foreclosure)
- Southington v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 71 Conn. App. 715 (Conn. App. 2002) (standard of review for trial court credibility determinations)
- Rice v. Farrell, 129 Conn. 362 (Conn. 1942) (public policy limits on financing litigation; interest requirement for payment of fees)
- Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 308 Conn. 312 (Conn. 2013) (attorney’s fees under § 52-249(a) with court-based findings)