Rohland v. Matcheson, No. Cv01-0451412 (Apr. 3, 2002)
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff seeks a return of the deposit of $3500. He also seeks damages in the amount of $2171.91 for the repairs he had made to his automobile presumably on the basis it added no value to his automobile. The Court finds that the defendant breached his contract with the plaintiff and he is entitled to the return of his deposit in the amount of $3500. With respect to the mechanical repair work that was done on the Cadillac, the plaintiff has failed in his proof that these services did not enhance the value of the automobile.
The defendant in his counterclaim claims that he expended $1520 in labor, $2163.65 for used parts and $571.32 for paint, for a total of $4500.86, and seeks reimbursement presumably on the basis of quantum meruit. The defendant has failed to prove that the parts, paint and labor added any value to the Cadillac, and therefore his counterclaim must fail.2
The court, in sum, concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $3500 in damages from the defendant, plus costs. The court also enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim.
After determining that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, the court examined the record to determine whether the plaintiff and/or the defendant made an offer of judgment pursuant to General Statutes §
Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff William Rohland and against the defendant Steven Matcheson, d/b/a Steve's Auto Body in the amount of $3500 plus interest in the amount of $362 plus counsel fees in the amount of $350, in all $4212 plus costs.
Berdon, Judge Trial Referee
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.