2004 Ct. Sup. 3156
No. CV 0406592Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
March 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DOHERTY, JUDGE.
This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, Patricia Carroll and Joseph Catalano, and against the defendants, James Stevenson and Nilocam Communications, LLC, in seven counts, all of them having their basis in the defendants’ breach of contract to build a house for the plaintiffs on a certain parcel of land in Orleans, Massachusetts.
On December 3, 2003, the defendants were defaulted for their failure to appear and the matter was assigned for a hearing in damages. The plaintiffs appeared and offered the evidence and testimony of Patricia Carroll. The defendants did not appear.
The plaintiffs’ evidence and testimony permits the court to make the following findings:
The defendants failed to prepare acceptable building plans for a house to be placed on land belonging to one of the plaintiffs on Cape Cod despite having accepted $1,000.00 from the plaintiffs for such house plans.
The plaintiffs also paid to the defendants the sum of $14,000.00 as a deposit on a house which the defendants promised they would build for approximately $222,758.33. After approximately two years of unsuccessful efforts to get the defendants to meet their contractual obligations, the plaintiffs retained a new contractor to build the house and they commenced this suit against the defendants.
The plaintiffs were informed by the new contractor that the house they were seeking to have built would now cost approximately $365,442.00. The extra cost was due in large part to the appreciation in building costs and related expenses which CT Page 3157 occurred during the approximately two years which the defendants had delayed the project.
The plaintiffs offered testimony that the house, while essentially the same design as the one which the defendants were to have built, is not exactly the same house in that the plans now call for a two-foot extension of the rear side of the house across its entire width. They admit that such a change in the design has contributed to the higher cost of the re-designed house. They did not provide the court with any competent evidence and testimony as to how much more that cost would be.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages which include the loss of bargain they sustained by the defendant’s failure to meet their contractual obligations. They also seek damages for the unjust enrichment realized by the defendants by the wrongful retention of the monies paid to them by the plaintiffs.
The court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in the above matter against the defendants. The amount of damages, however, cannot be accurately determined by the court without competent evidence as to the difference in cost between the first design of the house and the later design. For that reason, the matter is to be assigned for further proceedings at which time the plaintiffs will be required to provide such evidence.
By the Court
Joseph W. Doherty, Judge CT Page 3158