A pro se litigant's failure to answer a request to admit may not prevent the litigant from claiming that he does not agree with the request to admit, if a Superior Court clerk allegedly inform the litigant that he was not required to answer. The defendant property owner, Philip Cote, reached agreement with the plaintiff, Waldo Renewable Electric LLC, to install a solar system. Allegedly, Cote did not pay, and Waldo filed a mechanic's lien on his property and sought to foreclose the mechanic's lien. Cote objected that he should not be bound by the contract, because he could not read it. The court found that Cote had three business days in which to cancel the contract and, during that time, he could have arranged to have someone read the contract to him. Cote did not prove coercion, fraud or mistake, and the court found that the contract was enforceable. The plaintiff filed a request to admit and asked Cote to admit that the value of the solar system was $49,282. Allegedly, a court clerk informed Cote that he was not required to answer the request to admit. The court found that Cote's failure to answer the request to admit did not qualify as an admission of the truth of the request to admit. The court found that Cote agreed to pay $49,282 and that the plaintiff has possession of a rebate from Connecticut Clean Energy Fund that paid $26,532. Cote allegedly was unhappy with the materials and workmanship, and he was entitled to a credit of $10,000, because the solar system was removed. The plaintiff was entitled to $2,000, for costs to remove the solar system. Cote paid $900 for repairs, after the system was removed, and the court found he was entitled to a credit. The court concluded that Cote owes the plaintiff $13,850, plus attorneys' fees of $4,500, costs of $961 and interest.

VIEW FULL CASE