Opinion
CV 02-0100039-S
November 17, 2003
Plaintiff Stephen Hopko brought the present action for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien levied on the property of the defendants Brian St. Peter and Cathy St. Peter in order to secure the balance which he claims for construction of defendants' log home. The defendants purchased a log home kit, and entered into a contract with the plaintiff calling for the latter to assemble the log home kit on their property known as the "northerly side of Beaver Meadow Road" in Haddam, Connecticut.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to pay $53,413.90, the amount due on the contract. The defendants maintain that they are not required to pay the balance due because the plaintiff failed to comply with Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417a, et. seq. entitled "New Home Construction Contractors."
The court shall now review the relevant facts asserted by the parties. On or about March 11, 2002 the plaintiff, Stephen Hopko, entered into a written contract with the defendants to assemble from a kit a log home on their property known as the "northerly side of Beaver Meadow Road" located in Haddam, Connecticut. At the time the parties entered into this agreement the plaintiff was a registered new home constructor. He believed that the defendants were the general contractors and that he was a subcontractor hired to assemble the exterior portion of the log home kit purchased by the defendants.
Pursuant to the contract the plaintiff commenced assembly of the log home kit on or about March 21, 2002. The plaintiff had completed all the exterior work except for the log siding on the garage when he stopped work on June 6, 2002. At this point there was a problem with certain materials in the kit and defendant Brian St. Peter informed the plaintiff that he would contact him when the proper materials were delivered and he could then resume work. The defendant never called the plaintiff to return and resume work, and they have not paid him for the claimed balance. On or about September 4, 2002, the plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien on the land records of the town of Haddam.
The plaintiff is seeking to foreclose on the mechanic's lien in order to recover the balance for his work in constructing the defendants' log home. The defendants argue that the plaintiff is barred from bringing this instant action because he violated mandatory provisions of the New Home Construction Contractors Act. The plaintiff maintains that he is not precluded from bringing this action because the New Home Construction Contractors Act does not apply, since he was dealing with the defendants in their capacity as general contractors rather than as consumers.
The New Home Construction Contractors Act was enacted to "bring new home contractors under the same set of regulations, . . . as the home improvement contractors." Keenan Navarro Builders, Inc. v. Breault et al., 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 11, 2001 Conn.Super. LEXIS 3514, at *5 (December 10, 2001). Under this act a "new home construction constructor" is defined as "any person who contracts with a consumer to construct or sell a new home or any portion of a new home prior to occupancy." Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417a(5). A "consumer" is defined as "the buyer or prospective buyer, or the buyer's or prospective buyer's heirs or designated representatives." Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417a(8). This statute does not define the term "general contractor." However, the legislative history states that, "this bill applies to those persons . . . who contract directly with the consumer." 42 H.R. Proc., Pt. 9 1999 Sess., p. 3315. The court finds that since the defendants contracted to buy the labor and skill of the plaintiff in constructing a substantial portion of their new home, they meet the definition of consumers under the statute.
The act provides that "no person shall engage in the business of new home construction or hold oneself out as a new home construction contractor unless such person has been issued a certificate of registration by the commissioner in accordance with the provisions of this act." Wilson Building Design Associates, Inc., v. Vanderkerckhove et al., 2002 Conn.Super. LEXIS 265, at *29 (January 25, 2002). Additionally, Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417d(b) requires that the contract "include a provision advising the consumer that the consumer may be contacted by such contractor's prospective consumers concerning the quality and timeliness of such contractor's new home construction work . . ." The statute also states that a violation of any of these provisions shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice under subsection (a) of Connecticut General Statute Section 42-110b. Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417g.
The court will now discuss the standard of review for granting summary judgment. "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Conn. Practice Book § 17-49; Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 744-45 (1995).
A review of the contract and discovery discloses that the parties have presented no evidence from which the court can find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the defendants are consumers within the statutory definition. The legislative history of the New Home Construction Contractors Act clearly indicates that the defendants are consumers, and that the plaintiff is a new home construction contractor as defined in Connecticut General Statutes Sections 20-417a(5), (8).
Inasmuch as the contract in this case does not comply with the requirements set forth in Connecticut General Statutes Section 20-417d, the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
CLARANCE J. JONES JUDGE.