Twin Oaks Condominium Ass'n v. Jones
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 522
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Twin Oaks Condominium Association, the plaintiff, hired Imagineers, LLC to manage common elements; Rodvald E. Jones is a unit owner and defendant.
- In Nov. 2003, Jones experienced heating problems; MAREC repaired at Jones’s expense of $555.86, which Jones paid and then offset by withholding condo fees.
- Jones suffered water damage and heating issues; he alleged management failures and lack of notice/hearing before foreclosure proceedings.
- In Oct. 2004, Twin Oaks foreclosed for delinquent charges; it later rejected many payments and charged fees including the withheld amount and late fees.
- On Aug. 15, 2008 Jones filed a seven-count counterclaim; on Feb. 10, 2009 plaintiff withdrew its foreclosure action after CitiMortgage paid, and on Jan. 22, 2010 the court entered judgment for Jones on his negligence counterclaim in the amount of $25,000.
- Twin Oaks appeals the judgment, challenging the court’s negligence finding and the damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Twin Oaks negligent in managing the condos? | Twin Oaks did not breach the duty of care. | Twin Oaks breached duties by failing to hold meetings, provide notice/hearing, and maintain facilities. | Yes; court found breach of duty. |
| Did Twin Oaks's breach cause Jones's injuries? | Causation not proven; no link between management failures and damages. | Management failures led to heating, foreclosure, and property damages, and thus causation established. | Yes; proximate causation established. |
| Was the damages award of $25,000 properly calculated? | Damages were miscalculated or unclear in method. | Award supported by the record; trial court has discretion on damages. | Damages not clearly erroneous; $25,000 affirmed. |
| Was the damages challenge preserved for appellate review? | Record did not preserve the challenge. | Record includes memorandum and post-trial motions; preservation satisfied. | Yes; preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431 (Conn. 1975) (negligence is a fact-bound determination; factual review deference)
- Michalski v. Hinz, 100 Conn. App. 389 (Conn. App. 2007) (great deference to trial court findings)
- Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P. C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92 (Conn. 2006) (defer to trial court’s credibility determinations)
- Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124 (Conn. 2010) (established elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, injury)
- Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1998) (damages generally a matter for finder of fact; proof need not be mathematical exact)
- Centimark Corp. v. Village Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership, 113 Conn. App. 509 (Conn. App. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion in damages; review for clear error)
- St. John Urban Development Corp. v. Chisholm, 111 Conn. App. 649 (Conn. App. 2008) (in the absence of articulation, appellate review respects trial court meaning)
- Benedetto v. Wanat, 79 Conn. App. 139 (Conn. App. 2003) (lack of articulation not to undermine judgment)
- Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condominium Assn., Inc., 76 Conn. App. 306 (Conn. App. 2003) (duty to exercise care may arise from contract or circumstances)