168 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- In Nov. 2010 plaintiffs (Manivannan Solairaj & Malini Manivannan) contracted with defendant Mannarino Builders to construct and sell a house in South Windsor for $594,000; plaintiffs paid $59,300 in deposits. Closing was on or about Mar. 6, 2011.
- During construction plaintiffs complained of basement water intrusion and a vibrating family-room floor; they demanded extensive remedial actions and documents (including exterior waterproofing, engineering certificates, and an additional 10‑year structural warranty) and said they would not close until those demands were met.
- Defendant responded (Feb. 14, 2011) that waterproofing had been installed and had passed town inspection, that the product carried a 10‑year warranty, and that floor framing met code; defendant offered documentation and suggested plaintiffs retain an engineer or counsel to verify.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendant (Feb. 17) they would not close until satisfied; defendant’s counsel warned plaintiffs were in breach and later offered limited options to close; plaintiffs did not make required final selections or a specific purchase proposal.
- Court discharged plaintiffs’ lis pendens after finding they were not ready, willing and able to purchase; defendant sold the house to a third party. At trial (Oct. 2013) the court found plaintiffs breached the purchase agreement, defendant did not breach, plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim failed, and defendant’s counterclaim for tortious interference failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs breach the purchase agreement by refusing to close? | Plaintiffs argue their demands sought verification of defects and were reasonable; they did not repudiate the contract. | Defendant argues plaintiffs expressly said they would not close until extra conditions (beyond the contract) were met, thus repudiating and breaching. | Held: Court found plaintiffs demanded conditions beyond the contract and stated they would not close—constituted breach. |
| Did defendant breach the purchase agreement by delivering a house with a basement leak and substandard floors? | Plaintiffs contend repairs were incomplete and defendant failed to disclose that the leak was remediated. | Defendant contends waterproofing and inspections passed, repairs were performed as described, and building code requirements were met. | Held: Court credited defendant’s evidence (emails, testimony, town inspections) and found no breach by defendant. |
| Do plaintiffs have a viable CUTPA claim arising from the alleged construction defects and conduct? | Plaintiffs assert conduct surrounding construction and sale implicates CUTPA. | Defendant argues no contract breach proved and no evidentiary basis for CUTPA. | Held: Because plaintiffs failed to prove breach, the CUTPA claim necessarily failed. |
| Was defendant liable on its counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective economic gain? | Defendant alleged plaintiffs’ conduct interfered with its ability to consummate a sale to others. | Plaintiffs disputed the interference theory. | Held: Court found defendant did not prove tortious interference by a preponderance of the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc., 146 Conn. App. 169 (2013) (standard for clearly erroneous review of factual findings in contract disputes)
- Carroll v. Perugini, 83 Conn. App. 336 (2004) (refusal to pay or perform can constitute contract breach; trial court’s resolution of conflicting factual claims controls)
- Coppola Construction Co. v. Hoffman Enterprises Ltd. Partnership, 157 Conn. App. 139 (2015) (once a party repudiates a contract, nonbreaching party is excused from performance; appellate review limited to whether findings are supported)
- Treglia v. Santa Fuel, Inc., 148 Conn. App. 39 (2014) (elements of breach of contract: agreement formation, one party’s performance, other party’s breach, and damages)