Opinion
(5569)
The plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic's lien against certain of the defendants' real property claiming that the defendants had failed to make full payment for the construction of a house on that property. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and faulty workmanship. The trial court rendered judgment, in accordance with the report of the attorney referee to whom the matter was assigned, awarding the plaintiff some $9000 and awarding the defendants some $11,000. On the plaintiffs appeal to this court, held that the plaintiff, not having filed a timely objection to the acceptance of the attorney referee's report, could not prevail on its challenges to the acceptance of that report; moreover, the subordinate facts found by the attorney referee were sufficient to support his ultimate factual conclusions.
Submitted on briefs September 14, 1987
Decision released November 17, 1987
Action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the defendants filed a counterclaim; the matter was referred to Wayne G. Tillinghast, attorney state trial referee, who recommended judgment for the plaintiff, in part, on the complaint, and for the defendants, in part, on the counterclaim; thereafter, the court, Hendel, J., rendered judgment in accordance with the referee's report, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. No error.
Joseph Glass filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael A. Blanchard filed a brief for the appellees (defendants).
The plaintiff, Morning Star Holding Company, a corporation involved in commercial and residential construction, instituted this action for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien against the defendants' newly constructed house. The complaint alleged breach of contract and monies owed under the doctrine of quantum meruit. The defendants counterclaimed alleging breach of contract, faulty workmanship and breach of implied warranties.
While New England Savings Bank is also named as a defendant as the holder of the mortgage on said premises, we will refer to the homeowners as the defendants.
The matter was heard by an attorney trial referee and judgment was rendered by the trial court in accordance with his findings of fact. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff on the complaint in the amount of $9260.16, and for the defendants on the counterclaim in the amount of $11,525. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment for the defendant on the defendant's counterclaim.
Prior to the rendition of judgment, the plaintiff filed an objection to the referee's finding of facts, relating to the award of $6700 in damages for the replacement of the house's siding and $3500 for the replacement of its roof. The objection was untimely filed and was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims the trial court erred (1) in accepting the referee's report over its objection, and (2) in awarding monetary damages for the replacement of the house's roof and siding. We find no error.
The plaintiff first claims error in the trial court's acceptance of the referee's report despite the plaintiff's objection. Practice Book 441 provides in pertinent part that "[o]bjections to the acceptance of a report shall be filed within two weeks after the filing of the report or finding. . . ." The referee's finding in the present case was filed on August 20, 1986. The plaintiff's objection was not filed until September 12, 1986, nine days beyond the deadline established by 441. While we note in passing that in light of 441 the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's objection to the acceptance of the referee's report, we need not address this claim of error, as the plaintiff has failed to brief this argument on appeal. "`Assignments of error which are merely mentioned but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will be deemed abandoned and will not be reviewed by this court.' Bowman v. 1477 Central Avenue Apartments, Inc., 203 Conn. 246, 250 n. 3, 524 A.2d 610 (1987), quoting Hayes v. Smith, 194 Conn. 52, 66 n. 12, 480 A.2d 425 (1984); Fullerton v. McGowan, 6 Conn. App. 624, 625 n. 1, 507 A.2d 473 (1986).
The plaintiff also challenges the trial court's award of damages for the replacement of the house's siding and roof. The plaintiff's failure to file a timely objection to the acceptance of the referee's finding also impacts upon the scope of our review of the remaining claim of error.
"In the absence of a timely objection to the report, our review is strictly limited to ` "determining whether the subordinate facts found by the attorney referee were sufficient to support the referee's ultimate factual conclusions." Ross v. Renzulli, 9 Conn. App. 87, 90, 516 A.2d 149 (1986), quoting Blessings Corporation v. Carolton Chronic Convalescent Hospital, Inc., 7 Conn. App. 364, 367, 508 A.2d 829 (1986)." J. M. Rosa Construction Co. v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 9 Conn. App. 481, 485, 519 A.2d 1227 (1987). We conclude that the facts are sufficient.