DOCKET NO. HHD—CV—19—61 131568
`
`HAL M. BRITTON AND HAL HOME
`
`IMPROVEMENT, LLC
`
`VS.
`
`MARVA JAMES
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF HARTFORD
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`MARCH 12, 2021
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiffs, Hal M. Britton and Hal Home Improvement, LLC (collectively “Plai11tiffs”),
`
`have moved for the summary judgment in their favor on their First Count (breach of contract)
`
`and/or Second Count (fraud) of their Revised Complaint against Defendant, Marva James
`
`(“Defendant”). Plaintiffs submit the instant memorandum of law in support of their Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment. The basis for this motion is that Defendant has admitted each material
`
`allegation of Plaintiffs’ Revised Complaint dated September 18, 2019. More specifically,
`
`Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions and therefore each request
`
`has been deemed admitted. In further support, Plaintiffs have filed concurrently herewith an
`
`Affidavit of Hal Britton.
`
`I. Statement of Facts
`
`This is an action seeking to recover damages for the value of services performed by
`
`Plaintiffs upon real properties owned by Defendant. The following statement of facts are
`
`undisputed. Plaintiffs previously served Defendant with their First Set of Requests for
`
`Admissions, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which'Defendant failed to respond to in a timely
`
`manner. The Requests for Admissions were dated January 20, 2021 and Defendant on March 4,
`
`

`

`2021 Defendant filed with the Court her responses which were back dated to March 1, 2021, but
`
`they were late regardless. Pursuant to Practice Book § 13—23 (a) they are all deemed admitted.
`
`Plaintiff Hal M. Britton is the owner and sole member of co~p1aintiff, Hal Home
`
`Improvement, LLC. fiee, Affidavit of Hal Britton at para. 3. Plaintiff Britton is illiterate and
`
`cannot read or write. I_d. at para. 11. In 2011, Plaintiff Britton became involved in a loving,
`
`
`consensual relationship with Defendant. See, Ex. A, Request for Admission (hereinafter “RFA”)
`
`no. 1. During this relationship, the parties cohabitated. RFA nos. 5, 19. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff
`
`Britton, Defendant was married. REA nos. 2, 3. She maintains a home on the island of Jamaica,
`
`and while in Connecticut Defendant resided at 37 Foothills Way, Bloomfield, CT. Affidavit of
`
`Hal Britton at para. 5. Together, Plaintiff Britton and Defendant formulated a plan. Defendant
`
`would purchase homes in her name in the Hartford area that needed repair and rehabilitation, and
`
`Plaintiffs would make repairs and improvements to the homes. RFA no. 6. The parties further
`
`agree that Defendant would pay for the cost of the materials and that upon the sale of each
`
`property the parties would split the profits equally. RFA no. 7.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 37 Foothills Way, Bloomfield, CT, RFA no. 28. Plaintiffs then made improvements to
`
`that property. FRA no. 8.
`
`-
`
`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 118 Momingside Way, Hartford, CT, RFA no. 29. Plaintiffs then made improvements
`
`to that property. RFA no. 9.
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 112 Burnham St, Hartford, CT, RFA no. 30. Plaintiffs then made improvements to
`
`that property. RFA no. 10.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 144 Bumhain St., Hartford, CT, RFA no. 31. Plaintiffs then made improvements to
`
`that property. RFA no. 11.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 7 Deerfield Ave, Hartford, CT, RFA no. 32. Plaintiffs then made improvements to
`
`that property. RFA no. 12.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Defendant or persons acting on her behalf
`
`purchased 61 Judson St., Hartford, CT, RFA no. 33. Plaintiffs then made improvements to that
`
`property. RFA no. 13.
`
`Defendant’s representations to Plaintiff Britton that she loved him were false and were
`
`known to be so at the time they were made. RFA no. 22.
`
`Defendant’s representations to Plaintiff Britton that she loved him were made with the
`
`intent of inducing Plaintiffs to perform services at each of the properties identified in Plaintiffs”-
`
`Revised Complaint. RFA no. 23.
`
`As a result of the events described in Plaintiffs’ Revised Complaint, Plaintiffs have
`
`suffered damages of $271,500 plus a reasonable award of attorney’s fees. RFA no. 34.
`
`II. The Summary Judgment Standard
`
`As our Appellate Court has stated:
`
`Our standard of review for summary judgment is well settled. Practice Book § 17-
`49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
`
`

`

`affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as. to
`any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the
`evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party... The party moving
`for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine
`issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law.... The test is whether the paity moving for summary judgment
`would be entitled to a directed verdict on the same facts... Our review of the trial
`court's decision to grant the [defendant's] motion for summary judgment is
`plenary.
`
`The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present
`evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual
`issue... The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of
`such issues, but the evidence thus presented, if otherwise sufficient,
`is not rebutted by the bald statement that an issue of fact does
`
`exist... To oppose a motion for summary judgment successfully, the
`nonmovant must recite specific facts which contradict those
`stated in the movant‘s affidavits and documents... The opposing
`party to a motion for summary judgment must substantiate its
`adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material
`fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an
`issue... The existence of the genuine issue of material fact must be
`demonstrated by counter-affidavits and concrete evidence.
`
`DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583, 598—99 (Conn. App. 2010)
`(Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
`
`III. Legal Argument
`
`Our Appellate Court has consistently held that a party’s failure to respond to requests for
`
`admission in a timely manner results in the requests being deemed to have been admitted. In the
`
`case of .T.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA. v. Eldon, 144 Conn. App. 260 (2013) the Connecticut
`
`Appellate Court held that “due to the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the request[s] for admission,
`
`the relevant admissions — that the plaintiff had no legal or equitable interest in the note and
`
`mortgage and that the note had been paid in full by a third party H were deemed admitted.” Id. at
`
`

`

`265. Based on those admissions, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the
`
`defendant therein, and the Appellate Court affirmed that judgment.
`
`In Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. V. Vaneclc, 96 Conn. App. 390, (2006),
`
`the defendant therein made various arguments challenging the standing of the plaintiff to bring
`
`the foreclosure action. Plaintiff had served the defendant with requests for admission, which the
`
`defendant failed to respond to. The court held that the failure to respond to the requests for
`
`admissions in a timely manner deemed them admitted.
`
`Whatever the merits of this claim might be in the abstract, it cannot be sustained
`in this case because of the defendant’s failure to respond to the plaintiff’s request
`for admissions. In the second set of requests for admission, the defendant
`expressly was asked to admit that the attached computer generated exhibit was a
`true and accurate copy of the notice of default. He did not respond in timely
`fashion, which was deemed an admission.
`
`Bankers Trust at 397. (Emphasis added)
`
`In Gagne, Administratrix v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al., 26 Conn.
`
`App. 74 (1991), the defendant/Connnissioner of Transportation for the State of Connecticut had
`
`served the plaintiff therein with requests for admissions which plaintiff never responded to. “The
`
`plaintiffs failure to respond to the commissioner’s requests for admission resulted in the
`
`requests being deemed to have been admitted.” I_d. At 77. “Thus, the facts recited in the requests
`
`for admission are ‘conclusively established.’ The granting of summary judgment can be based on
`
`admissions resulting fi‘om a party’s failure to respond to requests for admission.” fl., citing
`
`Omstein v. Old Buckingham Corporation, 205 Conn. 572, 575 — 77 (1987).
`
`Turning to the instant case, and in accordance with the foregoing authorities, Defendant’s
`
`failure to respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions deems them admitted. Defendant has
`
`therefore admitted (1) the parties entered into an agreement whereby Defendant would purchase
`
`

`

`properties in her name, and Plaintiffs would rehabilitate the properties by making improvements
`
`to the same, (2) Defendant or someone acting on her behalf purchased each of the properties
`
`identified in Plaintiff’s Revised Complaint, (3) Plaintiffs then made improvements valued at
`
`$271,5 00, (4) Defendant’s representations that she loved him were false and known by her to be
`
`false at the time they were made, (5) the Defendant’s representations that she loved him and that
`
`they would split the profits equally were made with the intent of inducing Plaintiffs to perform
`
`services at each of the properties identified in the Revised Complaint, and (6) Plaintiffs have
`
`suffered damages in the amount of $271 ,500, plus a reasonable award of attorney’s fees. Stated
`
`differently, Defendant has admitted all material allegations of Plaintiffs’ Revised Complaint.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiffs request this Court enter summary judgment in their favor as to the
`
`First Count (breach of contract) and/or their Second Count (fraud).
`
`Plaintiffs, HAL M. BRITTON AND HAL
`HOME IMPROVEMENT LLC
`
`By
`
`
`
`305289
`Edward C. Taiman, Jr.
`Sabia Taiman, LLC
`450 Church Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel. (”860) 541—2077
`Fax. (860) 71343944
`Juris No. 412905
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that on this 12th day of March 2021, a copy of the foregoing was sent Via
`
`U.S. Mail and/or Via email, to all counsel of record, pro-se parties and non-appearing parties as
`
`follows:
`
`Sycd Zaid Hassan, Esq.
`Law Offices of Hassan Zaid LLC
`
`11 Mountain Avenue, Suite 301
`Bloomfield, CT 06002
`Email: ahassgmfiaaaidlmfinntggm
`
`By:
`
`
`
`305289
`Edward C. Taiman, Jr.
`
`

`

`DOCKET NO. I-IIID-CV—l9—61131568
`
`HAL M. BRITTON AND HAL’S HOME
`
`IMPROVENIENT, LLC
`
`VS.
`
`MARVA JAMES
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J.D. OF HARTFORD
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`JANUARY 20, 2021
`
`PLAINTIFFS” FIRST SET OF RE UESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`These Requests for Admissions are submitted by Plaintiffs to Defendant Marva James
`
`and are to he responded to in compliance with Conn. P.B. §13-22, et seq.
`
`1. Requests for Admissions
`
`1.
`
`Beginning in or around 2011, plaintiff Hal Britten and defendant Marva James
`
`(“defendant”) became involved in a long—term loving, consensual relationship (the
`
`“relationship”).
`
`Response:
`
`2.
`
`At the time of the relationship, defendant was married.
`
`Response:
`
`3.
`
`At the time of the relationship, plaintiff was unaware that defendant was married.
`
`Response:
`
`4.
`
`As a gift for love and affection, defendant purchased 427-429 Edgewood St, Hartford,
`
`CT (“subject property”) and gifted it to plaintiff Hal Home Improvement, LLC.
`
`EY- Pi
`
`

`

`Response:
`
`5.
`
`Both prior to and during the relationship, the parties lived together at the subject property.
`
`Response:
`
`6.
`
`During the relationship, the parties entered into an agreement (the “agreement”) whereby
`
`defendant would purchase real properties in her name, and plaintiff Hal Britton, acting through
`
`co-plaintiff Hal Home Improvement, LLC, would rehabilitate the properties by making
`
`improvements to said real properties.
`
`Response:
`
`7.
`
`As part ofthe agreement, defendant would pay for the cost of materials and upon the sale
`
`of each property the parties would split the profits equally.
`
`Response:
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon 37 Foothills Way,
`
`Bloomfield, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon 118 Morningside Way,
`
`Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`

`

`10.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon 112 Burnham St,
`
`Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon 144 Burnharn St,
`
`Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`12.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon 7 Deerfield Ave,
`
`Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs made improvements upon upon 61 Judson St,
`
`Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`14.
`
`The total value of services performed by the plaintiffs on said properties is no less than
`
`$271,500.
`
`Response:
`
`15.
`
`In 2014, defendant sued plaintiffs in a certain action entitled James v. Hal’s Home
`
`Improvement, LLC, et a1, bearing case number I-Il-ID—CV14-6054131—S (the “Iawsuit”).
`
`

`

`Response:
`
`16.
`
`Dm'ing the course of the lawsuit, the matter was referred to mediation where the parties
`
`reached an agreement whereby Hal Home Improvement, LLC agreed to pay Marva James the
`
`sum 0f$46,913.
`
`Response:
`
`17.
`
`As part of the agreement referred to in the preceding request, on April 28, 2015 Hal
`
`Home Improvement, LLC executed a $46,913 note and mortgage in favor of Marva James.
`
`Response:
`
`18.
`
`In the January/February 2018 timeframe, defendant told plaintiff Hal Britten that she
`
`loved him and that he no longer had to make payments on the $46,913 note and further requested
`
`that plaintiffs refinish a bathroom at her primary residence located at 37 Foothills Way,
`
`Bloomfield, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`19.
`
`As a result of the events described in the preceding request, the parties began
`
`cohabitating again and plaintiffs both ceased making payments on the note and thereafter made
`
`improvements to the bathroom as described therein.
`
`Response:
`
`

`

`20.
`
`Defendant deceived plaintiff Hal Britten into believing that she loved him, and further
`
`deceived plaintiffs into making further improvements to the bathroom.
`
`Response:
`
`21.
`
`After plaintiff refinished the bathroom at 37 Foothills Way, Bloomfield, CT, defendant
`
`informed plaintiff Hal Britten she did not love him and ceased cohabitating with him and begin a
`
`foreclosure action on the mortgage described in request no. 17.
`
`Response:
`
`22.
`
`Defendant’s representations to plaintiff Hal Britten that she loved him were false and
`
`known to be so at the time they were made.
`
`Response:
`
`23.
`
`Defendanta s representations that she loved plaintiff Hal Britten were made with the intent
`
`of inducing plaintiffs to perform services at each of the properties identified in requests 8 — 13,
`
`above.
`
`ReSponse:
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs relied upon defendant” s representations that she would. split the profits 50-50
`
`from the sale of the properties identified in requests 8 — 13, above.
`
`Response:
`
`

`

`25.
`
`But for defendant’s fraudulent representations to plaintiff Hal Britten that she loved him
`
`and that they would split profits 50—50, plaintiff Hal Britten would never have entered into an
`
`any agreement with defendant or made any improvement to the properties.
`
`Response:
`
`26. Defendant further engaged in fraudulent nondisclosure by failing to inform plaintiff Hal
`
`Britten that she was married.
`
`Response:
`
`27. Plaintiffs have suffered damage equal to all profits realized from the sale of the properties
`
`identified in requests 8 — 13.
`
`Response:
`
`28.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 37 Foothills Way, Bloomfield, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`29.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 118 Morningside Way, Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`

`

`30.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 112 Burnham St., Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`31.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 144 Burnharn SL, Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`32.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 7 Deerfield Ave, Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`33.
`
`Defendant or an entity in which she has or at one time had an interest in previously
`
`owned 61 Judson St., Hartford, CT.
`
`Response:
`
`34.
`
`As a result of the events described in plaintiffs’ revised complaint dated September 18,
`
`2019, plaintiffs have suffered damages of $271,500, plus a reasonable award of attorney’s fees.
`
`Response:
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs, HAL M. BRITTON AND I-IAL
`HOME INIPROVEMENT LLC.
`
`By:
`
`
`
`305289
`Edward C. Tailnan, Jr.
`Sabia Taiman, LLC
`450 Church Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel. (860) 541-2077
`Fax. (860) 713—8944
`Juris No. 412905
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that on this 20tll day of January 2021, a copy of the foregoing was sent via
`
`email, to all counsel of record, pro-3e parties and non—appearing parties as follows:
`
`Syed Zaid Hassan, Esq.
`Law Offices ol‘Zaid Hassan LLC
`
`1 1 Mountain Avenue, Suite 3 01
`Bloomfield, CT 06002
`
`By:
`
`
`
`305289
`Edward C. Taiman, Jr.
`
`