Gugliemi v. Willowbrook Condominium Assn., Inc., 151 Conn.App. 806

Gugliemi discovered a leak from a water spigot on Willowbrook common elements in summer 2007 causing water to enter his condo basement.
Gugliemi notified Willowbrook manager Maryanne Allen; Allen promised to fix the leak but the spigot remained leaking during 2007.
Gugliemi later observed water entering the basement in 2007 and could have shut off the spigot but did not.
Mold and water damage were discovered in October 2009; a written complaint was not sent to Willowbrook until February 1, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed a two-count action on January 31, 2011, alleging negligence and a rights enforcement under § 47-278(a).
Trial court held the action barred by § 52-584 two-year statute of limitations and by the three-year statute of repose; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the action was timely under § 52-584	Gugliemi contends discovery in 2009 tolled the period.	Willowbrook argues discovery of injury occurred in 2007, starting the clock then.	Action barred; harm occurred in 2007, two-year limit ended 2009.
Whether the action was barred by the three-year statute of repose	Not timely based on discovery timeline.	Respective timelines apply; injury occurred earlier, exceeding repose period.	The action also barred by three-year repose; but dispositive issue is accrual under § 52-584.

Rosato v. Mascardo, 82 Conn. App. 396 (2004) (injury accrues on discovery of actionable harm)
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Cooperman, 289 Conn. 383 (2008) (timeliness of claims is a question of law; accrual facts govern)
Tarnowsky v. Socci, 271 Conn. 284 (2004) (whether a claim is time-barred is a question of law; factual basis reviewed for clear error)
Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (standard for reviewing trial court findings of fact on issues of error)
D’Amato Investments, LLC v. Sutton, 117 Conn. App. 418 (2009) (ownership and reliance considerations in statutory limitations contexts)