149 Conn. App. 267
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Sung and Donald Gaynor contracted with defendant Richard Stein (doing business as Hi-Tech Homes) in 2005 to deliver/erect a modular home and supervise subcontractors for additional compensation.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2009 for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and CUTPA violations, alleging overcharging, incomplete work, and unauthorized scope changes.
- Defendant, proceeding pro se, failed to answer; clerk entered default for failure to plead. He did attend the damages hearing but did not file a notice of defenses under Practice Book §17-34.
- At the damages hearing the court credited plaintiffs’ testimony and exhibits and awarded $67,618 in contract damages and $14,404.19 in attorney’s fees under CUTPA (denying consequential and treble damages).
- On appeal the defendant argued (1) he had completed the work so contract damages were improper, and (2) the CUTPA-based attorney fee award was improper because plaintiffs’ CUTPA allegations were insufficient.
- Appellate court affirmed liability (default) and most damages but reversed $5,750 awarded for a line item labeled “process” (deemed unsupported) and reversed the CUTPA attorney’s fees award because the complaint did not plead facts sufficient to state a CUTPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defaulted defendant may contest liability | Gaynor relied on default — liability admitted; focused on proving damages | Stein claimed he complied with contract and liability should fail | Default precluded contesting liability; court properly treated liability as admitted |
| Whether damages awarded matched proof | Gaynor presented paid invoices and testimony of unpaid work to support damages | Stein argued he completed work so damages were overstated | Majority upheld most damage findings except reversed $5,750 for "process" as clearly erroneous |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a viable CUTPA claim | Gaynor alleged overcharging, charging for incomplete work, and scope changes; sought CUTPA relief including fees/treble damages | Stein argued complaint was invalid re: CUTPA and fees should be reversed | Complaint’s allegations were conclusory and did not plead facts rising to CUTPA unfairness; CUTPA attorney’s fees award reversed |
| Whether appellate court may review sufficiency of CUTPA allegations after default | Gaynor relied on trial court’s consideration and posthearing briefing | Stein (pro se) urged reversal of CUTPA fee award; raised issue broadly | Majority exercised plenary review and reversed; dissent would not reach issue as inadequately argued |
Key Cases Cited
- Argentinis v. Fortuna, 134 Conn. App. 538 (Conn. App. 2012) (default admits material facts and limits hearing to damages)
- Catalina v. Nicolelli, 90 Conn. App. 219 (Conn. App. 2005) (entry of default admits facts essential to relief but plaintiff must still prove amount of damages)
- Kosiorek v. Smigelski, 138 Conn. App. 695 (Conn. App. 2012) (three-part "cigarette rule" factors for evaluating CUTPA claims)
- Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp., 295 Conn. 214 (Conn. 2010) (not every breach of contract constitutes a CUTPA violation)
- Richey v. Main Street Stafford, LLC, 110 Conn. App. 209 (Conn. App. 2008) (plenary review of pleadings to determine sufficiency on default)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (Conn. 2014) (circumstances for appellate courts addressing issues sua sponte)