FCM Group, Inc. v. Miller
17 A.3d 40 | Supreme Court of Connecticut | 2011
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
FCM Group sued Jeffrey and Cheryl Miller over a home construction dispute in Greenwich, Connecticut. The trial court held Cheryl Miller liable for breach of contract even though she didn't sign the contract and didn't own the property. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that a non-signatory spouse cannot be held liable for a construction contract based on equitable ownership alone. This protects spouses from construction liability when only one spouse signs the contract.
Key Takeaways
- •Only get signatures from the actual property owner on construction contracts—equitable ownership or marital status doesn't create liability for non-signatories
- •If a spouse isn't named on the contract, they cannot be sued for breach even if they benefit from the property or have an ownership interest
- •Make sure your contract clearly identifies who is legally bound before starting work to avoid disputes about liability later
Cheryl Miller was not a party to the contract and did not hold title to the property.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue a spouse for breach of a construction contract if only the other spouse signed?
No. Connecticut courts have ruled that a non-signatory spouse cannot be held liable for breach of contract, even if they have an ownership interest in the property. You can only pursue the person who actually signed the contract. Always get the legal property owner to sign your construction agreements.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.