134 Conn. App. 538
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Harte, self-represented, was defaulted for failure to answer the amended complaint; plaintiffs pursued damages in a damages hearing.
- The amended complaint alleged trespass, repair/replacement damages, adverse possession/quiet title against Fortuna, and related relief, with Harte as a remaining defendant.
- Plaintiffs sought treble damages under § 52-560, damages for diminution in value, replacement shrubbery, and related relief; the court adopted an affidavit of debt totaling $60,334.11 plus costs.
- Notice of the damages hearing was mailed to Harte; he claimed nonreceipt but the court did not resolve notice issues on appeal.
- The trial court awarded damages based on the affidavit of debt, including items beyond what pleadings permitted and contrary to statutory/contractual limits; this court later found plain error in the damages award and remanded for a new damages hearing.
- On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the damages portion of the judgment as to Harte, while affirming otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability on defaulted amended complaint | Argentinis contends Harte is liable on counts in the amended complaint due to default. | Harte argues lack of notice and disputes liability evidence (bush removal). | Harte liable on at least nominal damages; liability affirmed, damages remanded. |
| Notice of damages hearing | Plaintiffs argued Harte had notice; receipt or nonreceipt is not controlling for appeal. | Harte asserts he did not receive notice to attend the hearing. | Record supports notice to Harte; court did not disturb that finding. |
| Treble damages under § 52-560 | Plaintiffs seek treble damages and punitive damages for shrubbery removal. | Harte contends treble damages/punitive damages are not justified. | Award of treble damages under § 52-560 constitutes plain error; treble damages not proper. |
| Damages measure and double recovery | Plaintiffs sought diminution in value, replacement cost for bushes, and other items (fence, etc.). | Harte argues the damages awarded exceed what pleadings and law permit and risk double recovery. | Damages awarded improperly; only one measure (diminution or cost of repair) may apply; certain items (fence, etc.) were improper. |
| Unjust enrichment and nuisance theories | Plaintiffs seek unjust enrichment damages and nuisance damages for property interference. | Harte argues these theories are unsupported by the pleadings and evidence. | Unjust enrichment not applicable; private nuisance claim insufficiently pleaded for the asserted relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Terrace Health Center, Inc. v. Parawich, 120 Conn.App. 78 (2010) (default admits liability but damages require proof; pleadings limit relief)
- Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn.App. 719 (2007) (default admissions bound to liability; references to implied admissions)
- State v. Elson, 125 Conn.App. 328 (2010) (in banc; supervisory power to correct plain error)
- Koennicke v. Maiorano, 43 Conn.App. 1 (1996) (legislative remedies; limits on attorney's fees under 52-560)
- Stamford Landing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lerman, 109 Conn.App. 261 (2008) (damages must align with pleaded theories; limits on proof of damages)
- Centimark Corp. v. Village Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership, 113 Conn.App. 509 (2009) (damages proof; cost of repairs as proxy for diminution in value)