Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

INTERCITY DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. JOAO ANDRADE ET AL. (SC 17848) (SC 17849)
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued October 22, 2007--officially released March 25, 2008

Robert E. Ghent, for the appellant-appellee (plaintiff). David P. Friedman, with whom, on the brief, was Marcy Tench Stovall, for the appellees-appellants (named defendant et al.).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. This consolidated1 appeal arises from an action for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien brought by the plaintiff, Intercity Development, LLC, against the defendants,2 Joao Andrade and Irene Andrade, in connection with a contract entered into by the parties for the construction of a residence on property owned by the defendants in the town of Oxford. The certified issue in the plaintiff's appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the judgment for the plaintiff for foreclosure of its mechanic's lien and attorney's fees. Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 281 Conn. 918, 918 A.2d 270 (2007). The certified issue in the defendants' appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to amend its complaint after trial.3 Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 281 Conn. 919, 918 A.2d 271 (2007). We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to the plaintiff's appeal and affirm the judgment with respect to the defendants' appeal, with the result that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in full. The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. ``On November 26, 2001, having reviewed the plans and specifications prepared for the defendants by an architectural firm, the plaintiff, through its president, Anthony Stewart, entered into a contract with the defendants for the construction of a residence on property owned by the defendants in Oxford for the agreed price of $240,000 payable in five payments of $48,000 each according to a schedule with respect to the work performed. According to the terms of the contract, construction was to be completed within 180 days of commencement. It did not provide for attorney's fees in case of default. ``Upon the commencement of work, the defendants requested many changes to the plans, causing considerable delays. The requested changes and the additional foundation work increased the cost of completing the contract to $264,441.50. ``On July 17, 2002, Stewart arrived on the job to find certain building supplies missing and to be met by police, who informed him that he was trespassing. Irene Andrade had called the police and directed a letter, through her attorney, terminating the construction contract. According to the letter, the basis for the termination was the plaintiff's failure to complete the construction within the 180 day period as set out in the contract. At the point of termination, the plaintiff claimed that it was owed the sum of $49,933.19 and filed a mechanic's lien for such sum. The plaintiff then brought this action to foreclose the mechanic's lien [and for damages for breach of contract]. . . .

``After a four day trial . . . [t]he court found that `the allegations of the plaintiff's first and second counts of its [amended] complaint [mechanic's lien foreclosure and breach of contract, respectively, had] been established by the evidence and [the court] accept[ed] the plaintiff's [calculation] of damages as set out in the damages work sheet attached in the plaintiff's trial brief . . . .' The court . . . awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $49,933.19, plus costs. The court thus found in favor of the plaintiff on both the claim to foreclose on the mechanic's lien and the claim for breach of contract. The court also stated that upon the plaintiff's filing of the appropriate motion, the court would entertain the foreclosure of the mechanic's lien. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to . . . General Statutes

Download Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade.pdf

Connecticut Law