Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zampaglione v. Dempsey

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, Waterbury

May 10, 2017

JILLIAN ZAMPAGLIONE
v.
JAMES DEMPSEY

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

          HON. RUPAL SHAH, Judge.

         The plaintiff, Jillian Zampaglione, brings this action in five counts against the defendant, James Dempsey. The plaintiff brings the following claims in connection with her contract for home improvement with the defendant:

(1) breach of contract;

(2) fraud;

(3) unjust enrichment;

(4) violation of the Connecticut Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; and

(5) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.

         The defendant was defaulted for failure to plead on January 23, 2017. The matter was heard by the court on May 5, 2017. The court received certain documents into evidence and heard the testimony of the plaintiff. The defendant received notice of the hearing on March 16, 2017, but failed to appear.

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         Based on the allegations of the complaint, the documents submitted into evidence and the testimony heard at trial, the court makes the following findings of fact:

         1. On September 10, 2014, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant for home improvement services (Contract) at the plaintiff's home at 435 West Hill Road in New Hartford, CT.

         2. At the time of the execution of the Contract, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he was a fully licensed and insured home improvement contractor.

         3. In fact, the defendant had not been licensed since November 30, 2012, and had not been insured since January of 2013, in violation of the Connecticut Home Improvement Act (CHIA).

         4. Despite his non-compliance with CHIA, the defendant began a series of substantial home remodeling projects on the plaintiffs home. In the interior of the home, the defendant agreed to removing sheetrock and insulation, inspecting the framing and reinstalling insulation and sheetrock in three bedrooms, hallway and bathroom; installing a Jacuzzi tub in the bathroom and appropriate plumbing and electrical; installing lighting in the kitchen, installing granite countertops in the kitchen, installing a stove pipe in the kitchen and removing and replacing two windows. On the exterior of the home, the defendant agreed to finishing the cement board, skim coating the entire exterior of the home, spraying on rubber siding, repairing the chimney, installing a bulkhead, basement and front door to the home; framing and constructing a front porch; framing and constructing a two story, three bay garage with a fully functional kitchen and bathroom and 25, 000 btu electric forced air unit; and repairing the roof on the home with a matching roof over the aforementioned garage.

         5. In the Contract, the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant a total of $70, 900.00 to complete the home remodeling and renovation as contemplated by the Contract. In accordance with the Contract, the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendant an initial amount of $28, 672.56 to cover the cost of parts and equipment, and an additional $10, 000.00 every week until the total $70, 000.00 was reached. The Contract allowed for the additional cost of parts and equipment for the countertops, stove pipe and garage stairs.

         6. The plaintiff paid an initial amount of $28, 672.56 to the defendant by certified bank check, in accordance with the terms of the Contract. Thereafter, the defendant began work on the above mentioned projects on September 11, 2014.

         7. Additional costs were accrued in the amount of $ 11, 180.00, increasing the total cost of the project to $82, 080.00. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to this modification to the contract's original terms by email on October 18, 2014.

         8. In accordance with the Contract, the plaintiff submitted certified bank checks in the amounts of $10, 000.00 on September 18, 2014 and September 26, 2014. On October 4, 2014, a check for $11, 380.00 was submitted to the defendant to cover ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.