Connecticut Home Health Services, LLC v. Futterleib
160 A.3d 352
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Connecticut Home Health Services (doing business as Right at Home) provided live‑in caregiver services to Ann and Alfred Futterleib beginning Feb. 13, 2010; no written contract was signed by the clients.
- The agency mailed a Client Services Agreement (signed by the agency) to the defendants’ representative, Robert Hendrickson, about five weeks after services began; Hendrickson did not sign or return it and testified he forgot about it.
- The agency continued providing services; payments became delinquent and the agency sued for $21,320.94 for unpaid services.
- At trial the court found an oral contract existed and imputed a bad‑faith exception, concluding Hendrickson intentionally withheld the signed agreement, which excused the agency’s noncompliance with the Homemaker‑Companion Agencies Act (§ 20‑679).
- The appellate court reversed in part: it held the record did not support a finding of Hendrickson’s bad faith and that § 20‑679 requires written, signed contracts, so an oral contract could not be enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted in bad faith by not signing/returning the service agreement, excusing agency's noncompliance with § 20‑679 | The agency (plaintiff) argued Hendrickson intentionally withheld the agreement, so the agency should be allowed recovery despite statutory noncompliance | Defendants argued Hendrickson forgot and there was no evidence of dishonest motive; statutory noncompliance stands | Reversed: court’s bad‑faith finding was clearly erroneous — record lacks evidence of intentional deceit, so noncompliance is not excused |
| Whether § 20‑679 permits enforcement of an oral contract for homemaker‑companion services | Agency argued parties formed an enforceable oral contract (agreed on daily rate and services began) | Defendants argued § 20‑679 requires a written, signed contract/service plan and thus oral contracts are unenforceable | Reversed: § 20‑679 requires a written signed contract; oral agreement unenforceable as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231 (recognizes bad‑faith exception to statutory written‑contract requirement in Home Improvement Act)
- Andy’s Oil Serv., Inc. v. Hobbs, 125 Conn. App. 708 (discusses bad‑faith exception application)
- Taylor v. King, 121 Conn. App. 105 (distinguishes Habetz where multiple statutory noncompliances exist; consumer's failure to sign alone insufficient to show bad faith)
- Caulkins v. Petrillo, 200 Conn. 713 (statutory language requiring written contracts construed as mandatory)
- Wright Bros. Bldg., Inc. v. Dowling, 247 Conn. 218 (principles of statutory construction)
- Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v. Grigsby, 215 Conn. 345 (quasi‑contract recovery barred where written‑contract statutory requirement not met absent bad faith)