Keith E. Simpson Associates, Inc. v. Ross
2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 553
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- On July 5, 2005, Ross entered a written contract with Simpson Associates to assist in presenting a site plan to the New Canaan environmental commission for a variance.
- The contract set hourly rates of $250 for Keith Simpson and $150 for other personnel, with Ross providing a $2500 retainer.
- Simpson prepared multiple plans and consulted various specialists; an invoice for $19,825.32 covered July–October 2005.
- Ross terminated the engagement in January 2006; a final invoice for $46,809.32 then followed, with a revised total of $57,959.32 including later services.
- Plaintiff sued on September 20, 2006; the trial court awarded $55,459.32 for unpaid services, plus interest and fees, finding the contract clear and Ross liable for nonpayment.
- Ross appeals challenging the damages amount and whether the court addressed an admitted breach of a material term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages supported by the evidence? | SIMPSON argues the total awarded reflects services actually rendered and due. | ROSS contends the amount is unsupported or miscalculated based on invoices and retainer deductions. | Damages supported; award not clearly erroneous. |
| Admitted breach of a material term addressed? | SIMPSON contends breach was proven by nonpayment per the contract terms. | ROSS asserts the record shows a breach and seeks review of that finding. | Record inadequate for review of the admitted breach due to lack of proper record on appeal. |
| Adequacy of the appellate record for the material-term issue? | SIMPSON relies on trial record for breach of term. | ROSS claims Practice Book § 61-10 requires an adequate record on appeal. | We cannot review the material-term issue without a proper record; nonetheless, judgment affirmed on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duplissie v. Devino, 96 Conn.App. 673 (Conn. App. 2006) (trial court damages discretion; clearly erroneous standard)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (Conn. 2010) (definitive review of factual findings; clearly erroneous standard)
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn.App. 686 (Conn. App. 2010) (appellate review of trial court findings and credibility)
- State v. Hoeplinger, 27 Conn.App. 643 (Conn. App. 1992) (need for complete factual record for appellate review)
- Singer v. Matto, 48 Conn.App. 462 (Conn. App. 1998) (adequacy of record required for meaningful review)