148 Conn. App. 728
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Sean O’Kane (architect) contracted in Dec. 2000 to provide architectural services for renovation of two adjoining houses owned by Goran and Melinda Puljic; construction by a third party (Rose) began Oct. 2001.
- O’Kane submitted 23 invoices; defendants paid 1–17 but not 18–23 totaling $92,201.35 for services dated July–Dec. 2002 (no invoices after Dec. 31, 2002).
- O’Kane sued in 2010 (service June 29, 2010) alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment; defendants pleaded statute of limitations (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576) and laches.
- Trial was bifurcated to decide the special defenses first; the trial court held the breach of contract claim time-barred and dismissed unjust enrichment on laches grounds.
- O’Kane appealed, arguing (1) continuous representation/continuous-performance tolling of the six-year statute, (2) a standstill agreement tolled the limitations period, and (3) laches should not bar unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-576 barred breach-of-contract claim (continuous representation/course of conduct) | Continuous representation or continuous performance delayed accrual until project completion (cert. of occupancy Sept. 25, 2005) | Contract billed monthly; invoices due on receipt/15 days; accrual occurs when each invoice became past due in 2002–2003 | Court affirmed: statute barred breach claim; continuous representation doctrine not applicable here |
| Whether a standstill agreement tolled limitations until arbitration resolved (Jan. 2007) | Parties agreed not to sue each other until defendants’ dispute with Rose was resolved, tolling limitations | No credible evidence of a standstill; withdrawn pleading is not a binding admission | Court affirmed: no standstill agreement proved; trial court’s credibility findings upheld |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim was barred by laches | Laches should not defeat equitable unjust enrichment claim against Goran if he was not a contracting party | Delay prejudiced defendants; trial court computed prejudice using potential contractual damages | Reversed in part and remanded: trial court used incorrect prejudice standard; laches issue must be reevaluated on remand |
| Whether Goran was a party to the written contract (impacting unjust enrichment claim) | Goran was not a signatory and thus unjust enrichment claim against him is available | Contract addressed to "Mr. & Mrs. G. Puljic" and factual indicators might show he was a party | Remand for trial court to find fact; if Goran was a party, unjust enrichment barred by statute; if not, evaluate laches anew |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588 (Conn. 2003) (adopted a limited continuous representation tolling rule for attorney malpractice in litigation)
- Gaylord Hospital v. Massaro, 5 Conn. App. 465 (Conn. App. 1985) (where services form a single, indivisible continuous course, accrual may be delayed until completion)
- I. Rosenfield v. David Marder & Assocs., LLC, 110 Conn. App. 679 (Conn. App. 2008) (discussion of accrual and when a cause of action is complete)
- Dreier v. Upjohn Co., 196 Conn. 242 (Conn. 1985) (withdrawn pleadings may be considered evidential admissions)
- Piteo v. Gottier, 112 Conn. App. 441 (Conn. App. 2009) (discussing limits of DeLeo and continuous representation doctrine)