Fezollari v. Jauzovic

Citations

• 232 Conn. App. 20

Syllabus

The defendant J, the owner of the defendant trucking companies, appealed from the default judgment rendered by the trial court, following a hearing in damages, for the plaintiff on his breach of contract action. J claimed, inter alia, that, at the hearing in damages, the trial court improperly denied her the opportunity to present evidence to mitigate damages pursuant to the relevant rules of practice (§§ 17-34 (a) and 17-40). Held: The trial court improperly denied J the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing in damages, as she was not permitted to engage in a full cross- examination of the plaintiff, to submit evidence repudiating the damages sought by the plaintiff, or to participate in a meaningful way other than to offer unsworn representations regarding the damages. This court concluded that, because the lack of an adequate record to review the harm caused by the trial court's failure to provide the defendant an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing in damages was not due to any fault of J, who was self-represented, a new hearing in damages was warranted based on the unique circumstances of this case. The trial court used an incorrect measure of damages for the value of the truck that was the subject of the contract that was breached, as it improperly relied on the amount of the plaintiff's investment in the truck two years prior to the breach of contract, rather than the truck's fair market value at the time of the breach, and, thus, had misinterpreted expectation damages. This court concluded that, because the rights of all parties were interwoven and the erroneous legal decision of the trial court formed the basis for the award of damages against all defendants, the damages award cannot stand, even as to the nonappearing defendant companies. Argued January 13—officially released April 15, 2025