Williams Ground Services, Inc. v. Jordan
166 A.3d 791
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- From ~2001–2013 Jordan (plaintiff) provided lawn, cleanup, maintenance, and snow‑plowing services at Williams’s (defendant’s) Darien home; billing and payments were irregular.
- Before Williams sold his house he asked Jordan to plow the driveway, promising a “fat check” at closing and that the outstanding bill would be paid; Jordan did the work.
- Jordan sued January 6, 2015 for unpaid services; Williams answered and pleaded three special defenses but did not assert a statute‑of‑limitations defense until pretrial briefing.
- At bench trial the court found Williams had (1) waived a statute‑of‑limitations defense or, alternatively, (2) tolled the statute by several acknowledgments of the debt (including statements about payment at closing and a $500 check marked “on account‑2011”), and awarded Jordan $32,558.70.
- Williams appealed, arguing: (A) the statute of limitations was not tolled because his statements/payments were insufficient or unreliable; and (B) the court improperly admitted photocopied yearly invoice summaries as business records.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | Williams's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations was tolled by defendant’s acknowledgments | Jordan argued defendant’s statements and the $500 payment constituted unequivocal acknowledgments or new promise tolling limitations | Williams argued plaintiff’s evidence was self‑serving hearsay, uncorroborated, and contradicted by Williams; thus insufficient to toll | Court: upheld tolling — trial court’s factual findings (statements + $500 payment) were supported and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Williams waived statute‑of‑limitations defense by not pleading it as a special defense | Jordan argued defendant waived the defense by late assertion | Williams argued waiver did not control because alternative tolling existed | Court noted waiver claim but affirmed on alternative tolling ground (did not need to decide waiver) |
| Admissibility of photocopied yearly invoice summaries as business records | Jordan showed he kept photocopies as his business records and identified them; sought admission | Williams objected the copies were incomplete and not established as proper business‑record reproductions or summaries | Court: admissible; objection went to weight, not admissibility; copies were originals for Jordan’s records and §8‑4(c) satisfied |
| Preservation of evidentiary objections to invoices | Jordan maintained admission; court accepted them | Williams contended multiple statutory grounds (best‑evidence, summaries, business‑record foundation) | Court: Williams preserved only incompleteness objection at trial; other statutory objections not preserved and not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zatakia v. Ecoair Corp., 128 Conn. App. 362 (Conn. App. 2011) (standards for what constitutes an unequivocal acknowledgment of debt that can toll the statute of limitations)
- Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn. App. 447 (Conn. App. 2002) (articulating review standard and evidentiary principles for acknowledgment and tolling)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (Conn. 2010) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings; preservation of objections required)
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn. App. 686 (Conn. App. 2010) (business records admissible but weight and accuracy remain for the trier of fact)