2006 Ct. Sup. 8381
No. CV04-4000768SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford at Derby
May 5, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
GEORGE W. RIPLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
On or about December 1, 2000 the plaintiffs Frederick and Lisa Elmy entered into a contract with the defendants William and Karen Griffin to purchase the defendants’ residence located in Seymour, Connecticut. (P. Ex. 1.) The agreement set a purchase price of $725,000 and included a listing of items which would be the responsibility of the seller including such things as replacing the front walkway, removal of a mirror over the fireplace in the living room, leaving existing window treatments in place and other items as enumerated therein as shown on the “Addendum” attached to the contract. (P. Ex. 2.)
The plaintiff Frederick Elmy testified that following the closing which took place on or about December 5, 2000, a number of items on the “Addendum” remained unsatisfied including the front walk, the missing window treatments and other items listed as being the responsibility of the defendant owners.
Other items were taken care of in full or in part by the defendants according to Frederick Elmy. Sometime after the closing Frederick Elmy obtained an estimate for repairs to the front walk (Item 1 on P. Ex. 1) and advised William Griffin as to the amount and Griffin agreed that the estimate was reasonable. Subsequently, the work was completed by the plaintiffs’ contractor at an expense of $10,504.82 which the plaintiffs paid. (P. Ex. 3.) William Griffin opined that the work done was “great.”
As regards the window treatments, the plaintiffs on several occasions requested the return of them pursuant to Item 10 of the “Addendum” but despite the many requests they were not produced and the plaintiffs thereupon proceeded to purchase replacements at a cost of $8,894.98. (P. Ex. 6.) Additionally, Item 15 on the “Addendum” called for construction of a fireplace front and CT Page 8382 mantel. The plaintiffs obtained an estimate for this work in the amount of $3,000. (P. Ex. 5.)
The total cost to the plaintiffs for work agreed to be furnished by the defendants totals $22,399.80. The plaintiffs also claim interest on these disbursements in the total amount of $5,819.93 pursuant to C.G.S. 37-3a which, inter alia, provides for an award of interest for money wrongfully detained. The plaintiffs’ damages including interest total $28,219.73.
The defendant claims that the “Addendum” is of no consequence as the plaintiffs accepted the defendant’s warranty deed and that document with no reservations or conditions relating to the plaintiffs’ claims noted constituted the entire transaction between the parties. It is clear to the court that the parties by their contractual agreement and their conduct following the closing intended that those conditions survive the execution and delivery of the warranty deed of December 5, 2000. See Poole v. Bargas, CV88-025825, Ansonia-Milford at Milford, 4 CSCR 232. The defendants also claim that the plaintiffs selected contractors not approved by the defendants and the cost for the work performed was unreasonably high. The court affords no merit to these claims. The defendants pointedly disregarded any involvement in correcting the items for which they were responsible and consequently must accept the results of the plaintiffs’ efforts to the extent that the court finds such to be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
The court finds the issues for the plaintiffs on the complaint and further finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the amount of $28,219.73, together with costs.
By stipulation of the parties as set out in the defendants’ post-trial brief the counterclaim of the defendants has been rendered moot and accordingly is not considered by the court. CT Page 8383