Burns v. Adler
158 Conn.App. 766
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jim Burns (contractor) performed extensive renovation work on Adler’s Lakeville home under a rudimentary time‑and‑materials contract; defendant Adler paid $985,000 but refused to pay the final ~ $214,039 balance.
- The written contract lacked several Home Improvement Act (act) requirements (no completion date, plaintiff didn’t sign or deliver an executed copy), so plaintiff’s breach‑of‑contract and unjust enrichment claims were barred by the act absent an exception.
- Trial was bifurcated: first phase litigated damages and the defendant’s special defenses (including noncompliance with the act); second phase (foreclosure of mechanic’s lien) was reserved and later resolved by stipulation.
- The trial court found Adler acted in bad faith (enticed Burns to continue work after last payment while intending not to pay; used the act as a shield) and applied the bad‑faith exception to allow restitution of $214,039.09.
- On the mechanic’s lien foreclosure, parties stipulated to judgment without a hearing; the court denied attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑249(a) because the statute requires a hearing on form of judgment or redemption period as a condition to fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bad‑faith exception to the Home Improvement Act still applies after P.A. 93‑215 | Burns: Habetz‑style bad‑faith restitution remains available | Adler: P.A. 93‑215 abrogated the exception | Court followed precedent (Walpole) and rejected abrogation claim; exception remains binding law |
| Whether bad faith must predate or induce contractor’s performance or require homeowner’s knowledge of the Act at time of performance | Burns: Bad faith can be shown by homeowner’s subsequent use of the Act to defeat a contractor’s recovery where overall conduct is dishonest | Adler: Bad faith invalid unless homeowner knew of Act/noncompliance when services were accepted or induced performance | Court held bad faith need not predate or induce performance; invoking Act later for a dishonest purpose is enough |
| Whether Adler’s conduct (disputing charges/refusing payment) was only a bona fide dispute or constituted bad faith sufficient to overcome statutory bar | Burns: Adler’s pattern (stopping payments after project substantially complete, enticing further work, leveraging contractor’s insolvency) shows dishonest motive | Adler: He had an honest dispute over charges/quality, not sinister motive | Trial court’s factual bad‑faith finding upheld as not clearly erroneous; conduct met Habetz standard for bad faith |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under § 52‑249(a) without a separate hearing on foreclosure form or redemption when liability was decided in bifurcated trial | Burns: The trial on contract/unjust enrichment supplied the "hearing" required by § 52‑249(a) | Adler: § 52‑249(a) plainly requires an actual hearing on the foreclosure judgment terms; parties agreed to no hearing | Court held § 52‑249(a) requires a hearing on form of judgment/limit of redemption; stipulation and bifurcation meant no such hearing occurred, so fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231 (Conn. 1992) (recognizes bad‑faith exception to Home Improvement Act where homeowner invokes the Act to repudiate a substantially completed contract in bad faith)
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 224 Conn. 240 (Conn. 1992) (bad‑faith inquiry requires dishonest or sinister motive; honest mistake insufficient)
- Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 307 Conn. 582 (Conn. 2012) (affirms continued viability of bad‑faith exception post‑P.A. 93‑215 and applies exception where homeowner withheld payment despite completed work)
- Andy’s Oil Service, Inc. v. Hobbs, 125 Conn. App. 708 (Conn. App. 2010) (discusses remedial purpose of Act and bad‑faith exception principles)