Opinion
No. CVN-1006-2245
April 1, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an action by the plaintiff, Newington Professional Center, LLC, relating to commercial retail space (hereinafter referred to as the "subject premises") located at the 1268 Main Street, Newington, Connecticut. The plaintiff has commenced this one count breach of lease action for unpaid rent and other damages from the defendants. There was no appearance filed in this matter from Statewide Home Improvement, LLC. The plaintiff asserts that as Mr. McQuillen's signature appears on the subject lease and amendments, without any written indication if the signature section that he was signing on behalf of the corporation, he is personally liable for the damages resulting from the breach of lease executed between the parties. Defendant McQuillen asserts that, as the lease was between the plaintiff and Statewide Home Improvement, LLC, he is not personally liable for any damages resulting from the breach. There was no dispute as to amount claimed in damages: $27,580.26. The plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees of $5,733.80
On December 3, 2010, all parties were present for the trial of this matter. Testimony was taken and evidence was submitted before this court. The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the testimony and credibility of the witnesses and reaches the conclusions set forth herein by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
BURDEN OF PROOF
"While the plaintiff is entitled to every favorable inference that may be legitimately drawn from the evidence, and has the same right to submit a weak case as a strong one, the plaintiff must still sustain the burden of proof on the contested issues in the complaint and the defendant need not present any evidence to contradict it." Lukas v. New Haven, 184 Conn. 205, 211 (1981). The general burden of proof in civil actions is on the plaintiff, who must prove all the essential elements of their cause of action by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Gulycz v. Stop Shop, 29 Conn. App. 519, 523, cert. denied. 224 Conn. 923 (1982). Failure to do so results in judgment for the defendant. Id. ". . . [W]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged." Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 308 (1998).
STANDARD OF PROOF
The standard of proof in civil actions, a fair preponderance of the evidence, is "properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394 (1981).
THE PROCEEDINGS
"The fact-finding function is vested in the trial court with its unique opportunity to view the evidence presented in a totality of the circumstances, i.e., including its observations of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavoli v. DeSimone, 88 Conn. App. 638, 646, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 906 (2005). "It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony . . . it is the quintessential function of the factfinder to reject or accept certain evidence. . . ." (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn. App. 534, 540 (2000). "The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier [of fact]." Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123 (1981). "[N]othing in our law is more elementary than that the trier [of fact] is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded to the testimony." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Toffolon v. Avon, 173 Conn. 525, 530 (1977). "The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party." Smith v. Smith, supra, 183 Conn. 123. "Then determination of credibility as a function of the trial court." CT Page 7119Heritage Square, LLC, v. Eoanou, 61 Conn. App. 329, 333 (2001).
"[T]he trier is free to juxtapose conflicting versions of events and determine which is more credible . . . it is the trier's exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses . . . the trier of fact may accept or reject the testimony of any witness . . . the trier can, as well, decide what — all, none, or some — of the witnesses' testimony to accept or reject." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Osborne. 41 Conn. App. 287, 291 (1996). The trial court's function as the finder is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." In re Christine F., 6 Conn. App. 360, 366, cert. denied 199 Conn. 808 (1986).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The court finds that the plaintiff has established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, a failure to pay rent when due in violation of the lease agreement.
The named parties in the lease agreements and addenda are Newington Professional Center, LLC and Statewide Home Improvement, LLC. In the lease agreement, the defendant signed his name under the title "tenant". The agreements were drafted by the plaintiff and/or the previous property owner. The plaintiff's witness was not able to provide context to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreements as to whether defendant McQuillen signed the agreements in an individual capacity or on behalf of the corporation. The first amendment to the lease lists "Statewide Home Improvement, LLC" as the tenant on its first page as well as on other pages of that and other exhibits.
There is not sufficient evidence based on the testimony and exhibits submitted by the plaintiff to support their claim that the defendant McQuillen entered into this lease agreement as an individual such as to hold him personally liable for any damages. There is also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant McQuillen personally guaranteed the lease. See Harris v. Shea, 79 Conn. App. 840 (2003). The lease contains no personal guarantee provision. No attachments were offered to indicate that the individual defendant intended to be personally bound by the lease. There was insufficient testimony from the plaintiff's witness upon which this court could base such a finding. The evidence in support of the plaintiff's assertion is ambiguous at best.
"Where the language [in a contract] is unambiguous, we must give the contract effect according to its terms . . . where the language is ambiguous, however, we must construe those ambiguities against the drafter . . . a contract is ambiguous if the intent of the parties is not clear and certain from the language of the contract itself . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotations omitted.)McCarthy v. Custom Design Services, Inc., 126 Conn. App. 274, 281-82 (2011).
The court distinguishes this case from Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paving, LLC, et al. In that matter the court found the named defendants individually liable in that they had signed the contract in question in their individual capacities and based on a finding that the defendant's had executed the contract in the name of a corporation that had yet to be formed. Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paying, LLC, et al., 106 Conn. App. 330 (2008). The court found the defendants personally liable based on, inter alia, a statutorily based theory of liability. See alsoEdmands v. Cuno, 277 Conn. 425 (2006) (The court found personal liability when the party in question used a fictitious or assumed business name including "doing business as"). There are no such claims in the case at bar.
Additionally, there is no basis upon which this court can justify piercing the corporate veil of the defendant LLC to hold defendant McQuillen personally liable. See Connecticut Light and Power v. Westview Carlton Group, LLC et al., 108 Conn. App. 633 (2008).
ORDER
The court awards damages to the plaintiff from the defendant Statewide Home Improvement, LLC in the amount of $27,580.26. The court further awards attorney's fees to the plaintiff from Statewide Home Improvement, LLC in the amount of $5,733.80. The total amount of the judgment for the plaintiff from defendant Statewide Home Improvement, LLC is $33,314.06. The court finds no liability as to defendant Maximillian D. McQuillen.