Opinion
No. CV 04 400 07 62 S
April 11, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter was tried as a hearing in damages on April 6, 2005. The defendant, appearing pro se, was defaulted for failure to plead. He did, however, appear at the hearing in damages and, pursuant to the rules of practice, Section 17-40, offered evidence to reduce the amount of damages claimed.
The complaint alleges an oral agreement between the parties that the plaintiff would lend the defendant money to purchase a car; that she borrowed $7,000 from Fleet Bank for that purpose and that the defendant agreed to make payments of $332.76 per month for twenty-four payments to pay off the loan.
She testified that the defendant bought a 1989 Ford Mustang for $5,000 but has refused to make any of the agreed payments.
The only document in evidence is the consumer note from the plaintiff to Fleet Bank in the amount of $7,000 with a payment schedule.
The defendant testified that he did buy a 1989 Ford Mustang in a private sale and that he paid $1,000 for it using his own money.
At the time the parties were living together and both worked for Hartford Dispatch. They have since split up.
The defendant testified that he was regularly employed, had good credit, and did not borrow any money from the plaintiff and that he had no need to borrow from the plaintiff. There was no explanation of where the $2,000 difference between the loan and the plaintiff's claim of a $5,000 purchase price went.
It is the plaintiff's burden of proof to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the amount of damages she should receive. In this case, she failed to prove that she and the defendant had a contract that he would pay off the note in her name. She failed to prove that the defendant used her money to buy the car in question, or even what the car cost. Succinctly put, it is a question of she said he said without any corroboration for the allegations to show where the loan money went, the cost of the car, or a promise by the defendant to pay the loan, or that he received any of the proceeds.
The case of Marcus v. DuPerry, 25 Conn.App. 293 (1991) is instructive. In that case, after a hearing in damages, the ruling was that the contract the plaintiff sought to enforce was void for lack of consideration, ergo the plaintiff could not prove his damages.
In this case the plaintiff did not prove she and the defendant had a contract at all, or that the defendant used her money to purchase the car in question.
Because, however, this was a hearing in damages the plaintiff must be awarded nominal damages.
Judgment shall enter for the plaintiff in the amount of $5.00, plus costs, provided a bill of costs is submitted by the plaintiff within fifteen days of this decision Marcus v. DuPerry, 25 Conn.App. 293, 295 (1991).
Klaczak, J.T.R.