Connecticut Court of Appeals, 1997

Eastern Metal Products, Inc. v. Deperry

Connecticut Court of Appeals · Decided January 7, 1997 · Daly

44 Conn. App. 60; 686 A.2d 1003; 1997 Conn. App. LEXIS 1

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Citino v. Hartford Redevelopment Agency, No. Cv 95 0545209s (Jan. 30, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Davis Construction Corp. v. FTJ (Va. 2020)
Davis Construction Corp. v. FTJ (Va. 2020)
Unique Boutique, Inc. v. Hylton, No. Cv 97-0397938 (Jan. 8, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Mystic Investment Corp. v. Brothers Realty Co., No. 568731 (Jul. 24, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Paganelli Const. v. U.N.F. Inc., No. Cv970569803 (Jan. 26, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Zanoni v. Hudon (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)
Belcher v. Goodway Printing Graphics, No. Cv96 0155524 (Jul. 23, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Ceci Brothers, Inc. v. Five Twenty-One, No. Cv96 0150073 S (Jun. 20, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Schuster v. Dragone Classic Motor Cars, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
Wachtel, Duklauer Fein, Inc. v. Sentinel, No. Cv94 0048307s (Nov. 2, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
Rosen Realty Associates v. Stern, No. Cv95-0370701s (Jun. 25, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

DALY, J.

In this unjust enrichment action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered on the defendant tenant’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff alleged that it had supplied materials to a contractor hired by the tenant to construct improvements on premises leased by her. The plaintiff further alleged that the contractor installed the materials on the premises, that the plaintiff had not been paid and that the materials were being used by and in possession of the tenant.

On the day of trial, no factual hearing was held, and the lease was not entered into evidence. Nevertheless, the trial court, sua motu, requested the tenant to make an oral motion to dismiss the action, which the court granted. The trial court based its ruling on its determination that the materials were affixed to the real estate and conferred no benefit on the tenant because she did not own the premises.

“Unjust enrichment is a very broad and flexible equitable doctrine; Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, [156 Conn. 561, 564, 244 A.2d 404 (1968)]; which has as its basis that it is contrary to equity and good conscience for the defendant to retain a benefit which has come *62to him at the expense of the plaintiff. National CSS, Inc. v. Stamford, 195 Conn. 587, 597, 489 A.2d 1034 (1985). Its three basic requirements are (1) that the defendants were benefited, (2) that the defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, arid (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiffs’ detriment. Montanaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Snow, [4 Conn. App. 46, 53, 492 A.2d 223 (1985)]. All the facts of each case must be examined to determine whether the circumstances render it just or unjust, equitable or inequitable, conscionable or unconscionable, to apply the doctrine. Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, supra, 565.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bolmer v. Kocet, 6 Conn. App. 595, 612-13, 507 A.2d 129 (1986). The relevant facts in the present case could not have been determined without an evidentiary hearing and an examination of the terms and conditions of the lease.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.