FCM Group, Inc. v. Miller, 300 Conn. 774

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed a breach-of-contract and mechanic’s-lien foreclosure action arising from the construction of a single-family home. The court addressed the liability of a non-signatory spouse, delay damages, the enforceability and amount of mechanic’s liens, attorney’s fees, and damages under Connecticut lien statutes. It reversed in part the trial court’s judgment accepting an attorney trial referee’s recommendations.

Holdings

1. A person who is not a party to a contract is not liable for its breach merely because she allegedly has an equitable or beneficial ownership interest in property related to the contract. Cheryl Miller therefore could not be held liable on the construction contract.
2. A contractor may not recover a contract balance that it failed to prove represented materials furnished or services rendered, particularly where the evidence showed that the contractor had been paid more than the value of the work completed.
3. A mechanic's lien cannot secure payment for materials not furnished or services not rendered, and the $30,761.98 lien was therefore invalid. The strict-foreclosure judgment and the plaintiff's attorney's-fee award under § 52-249(a) had to be reversed.
4. The contract did not permit FCM to recover monetary damages for delays caused by change orders or the wetlands-permitting process. For delays not covered by the owner's separate-contractor provision, the contract provided an extension of time as the exclusive remedy.
5. Because FCM was not entitled to recover the claimed delay damages, the $343,351.47 mechanic's lien securing those damages was invalid, and Jeffrey Miller was entitled to the statutory damages awarded under § 49-8(c).
6. The trial court was required to determine Jeffrey Miller's reasonable attorney's fees under § 49-8(c) because his claim was properly before the court and the statute mandates attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cheryl Miller, who neither signed the construction contract nor held title to the property, could be held liable for breach of that contract based solely on alleged equitable or beneficial ownership.
2. Whether FCM proved an unpaid contract balance and could recover that balance or foreclose a mechanic's lien securing it.
3. Whether the construction contract permitted monetary damages for delays caused by change orders and the wetlands-permitting process.
4. Whether the mechanic's lien securing claimed delay damages was valid.
5. Whether Jeffrey Miller was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under General Statutes § 49-8(c) for successfully invalidating the delay-damages mechanic's lien.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded