186 Conn. App. 299
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Lisa Bruno sued Heritage Homes Construction Co., LLC (Heritage) alleging breach of contract for failing to provide biweekly invoices and written change orders during construction of a high‑value residence; she claimed those breaches dissipated marital funds and reduced her recovery in a pending divorce.
- A 2013 jury found Heritage breached the contract but also (via a special defense of waiver) returned a verdict for Heritage; the trial court denied Bruno’s motion to set aside that verdict.
- On appeal this court reversed only the jury’s finding on the unpleaded waiver defense and remanded solely for a hearing in damages on the jury’s earlier finding of breach (liability was treated as established by the jury’s answers to interrogatories).
- At the remand hearing Bruno offered testimony and financial evidence claiming funds withdrawn from a Charles Schwab account were dissipated by payments to Heritage and that, but for the breach, those funds would have remained and produced a greater property and alimony award in her divorce.
- The trial court found (1) the Schwab funds were paid to Heritage for construction, (2) the house retained value (construction costs ≈ $7.75M; FMV ≈ $7.9M), and (3) Bruno presented no reliable evidence that the marital estate was diminished or that the dissolution court would have awarded more; it therefore concluded she failed to prove actual damages and entered judgment for Heritage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved actual damages from Heritage’s breach | Bruno: Heritage’s failure to provide invoices/change orders caused dissipation of Schwab funds that would have remained in the marital estate and produced larger divorce awards | Heritage: Funds were paid for construction; the residence retained value and plaintiff received an equal share on dissolution, so no diminution caused by Heritage’s breach | Court: Affirmed — plaintiff failed to prove diminution or causation; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether damages claimed were foreseeable/causally connected to the breach | Bruno: Loss of Schwab funds and consequent effect on alimony/distribution were foreseeable results of Heritage’s breach | Heritage: The expenditures were payments for construction; speculative to assume dissolution court would have ordered differently | Court: Held foreseeability/causation not established; speculative projections are insufficient |
| Whether trial court exceeded remand scope by entering judgment for defendant after hearing in damages | Bruno: Court exceeded mandate by entering judgment for Heritage rather than awarding at least nominal damages or entering judgment for plaintiff on breach count | Heritage: Hearing could challenge existence/amount of damages even if liability established | Court: Trial court erred in directing judgment for defendant on breach count but error was not reversible under precedent rejecting reversal for mere failure to award nominal damages |
| Whether failure to award nominal damages requires reversal | Bruno: Entitled to nominal damages because jury found breach | Heritage: (implicit) remedial posture of damages hearing allowed contesting damages; no reversible harm | Court: Plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages as a matter of law, but the court’s failure to award them is not reversible error under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gianetti v. Norwalk Hosp., 304 Conn. 754 (2012) (standard of review for trial court factual findings and credibility)
- Neiditz v. Morton S. Fine & Assocs., Inc., 199 Conn. 683 (1986) (contract damages limited to damages foreseeable at formation)
- Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 149 Conn. App. 177 (2014) (causation and foreseeability in breach of contract damages)
- Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer, 282 Conn. 209 (2007) (entitlement to nominal damages for technical breach)
- Hi‑Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com‑Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (2000) (general rule: appellate courts will not reverse for mere failure to award nominal damages)