414 A.2d 204 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1980
This is an action by condominium unit owners and their association against the architect and developers of the project and against the *127 former officers and directors of the association for damages arising from alleged structural deficiencies in the project. The defendants have moved to strike the complaint by the plaintiff intervenor, Country Squire III Association of Cromwell, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). The complaint includes three counts alleging breach of warranty, breach of fiduciary duty and architectural malpractice. The motion to strike is based on the claim that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action.
The defendants have also moved for leave to amend their answer to add a special defense and setoffs, to which motion the plaintiff objects.
The defendants' claims evince a misunderstanding of the scope of review on a motion to strike which admits all well pleaded allegations and all facts provable thereunder. Tango v. New Haven,
The plaintiff's allegations would clearly admit proof of facts showing: (1) a contractual duty to maintain the project; (2) damages in the form of increased maintenance costs because of alleged construction and design deficiencies; and (3) malfeasance and nonfeasance by promoters, directors and officers of the plaintiff association resulting in damages to the property of that association.
Such allegations show a direct and substantial injury to the plaintiff providing it with a clear personal stake in the outcome of the controversy and establishing its standing to proceed as a real party in interest as to all three counts. See Belford v.New Haven,
Additional contentions made by both parties merit brief comment. Both parties made extensive reference to the Condominium Act of 1976; General Statutes §§
The defendants, in oral argument, asserted lack of privity as a ground for contending that the plaintiff lacked standing. A distinction must be made between requirements for an injury sufficient to give standing and requirements for allegations of a legal theory sufficient to provide a basis for relief.Ducharme v. Putnam,
The motion to strike is therefore denied.
In the case at bar the motion to amend was filed on August 20, 1979, more than five months after the pretrial hearing of March 1, 1979. Permitting an amendment filed that long after pretrial would very likely be considered an abuse of discretion.Wesson v. F. M. Heritage Co.,
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to amend the answer is denied.