## Facts

- Pisani Construction, Inc. contracted with Adolf and Ida Krueger to erect a metal building addition sharing a common wall with an existing structure.
- The contract required the new building’s frames and wall panel heights to match the existing structure.
- The owners paid $21,500 up front; construction began in November 1996 and finished in January 1997.
- Before completion, the roof line of the new building was discovered to be about three inches higher than the existing building.
- Pisani did not correct the height mismatch and instead modified ridge caps to visually blend the roof lines.
- The mismatch caused functional problems, including misalignment of gutters and windows and winter icing.
- The owners used the addition but withheld the final contract payment due to the defect.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that Pisani did not substantially perform the construction contract.
2. Whether the failure of substantial performance permitted the owners to withhold the final payment and defeated Pisani’s mechanic’s lien foreclosure claim based on that unpaid balance.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment for the defendant on Pisani’s mechanic’s lien foreclosure complaint.
- The court held the trial court’s finding of no substantial performance was not clearly erroneous because the height-matching requirement was a key contract component and the deviation caused functional harms.
- Because Pisani failed to satisfy the condition of substantial performance, it could not recover the withheld final payment or foreclose a mechanic’s lien predicated on that payment.

## Legal Principles

- Substantial performance in a construction contract is a fact question for the trier of fact; appellate review is limited to whether the finding is clearly erroneous.
- A contractor seeking contract recovery for an unpaid balance, including through a mechanic’s lien foreclosure based on that balance, must prove substantial performance of material contractual terms.
- A material deviation from a key specification that causes nontrivial functional problems may support a finding of no substantial performance, defeating recovery of the withheld installment tied to completion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of a contractor’s mechanic’s lien foreclosure and recovery of the final payment where the contractor failed to substantially perform a material contract requirement that the new structure match the existing one in height, resulting in functional defects.


Pisani Constr., Inc. v. Krueger, 68 Conn. App. 361, 791 A.2d 634 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)