Overview:
A Connecticut plumbing contractor who secured a default judgment in 2022 says he has yet to receive payment nearly four years later, as court records show the case has now been reopened for further litigation. The dispute centers on unpaid plumbing work and a mechanic’s lien filed against a Milford property, with the homeowners recently retaining counsel to vacate the prior judgment and relitigate the matter. The case highlights ongoing challenges contractors face when enforcing civil judgments, even after court approval, and raises broader questions about judgment finality, collection delays, and access to relief in Connecticut’s civil court system.
MILFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut plumbing contractor who secured a court-approved default judgment in 2022 is once again being pulled back into litigation nearly four years later — without having received payment — after a Superior Court judge granted a motion reopening the case.
Court records show Albert L. Munroe, Jr., Plumbing & Heating, Inc. obtained a default judgment in September 2022 against Milford homeowners Robert Russ and Jennifer L. Russ after the defendants failed to plead in response to a civil action tied to unpaid plumbing work at 10 Flax Mill Ln, Milford, CT 06461 and a mechanic’s lien .
Despite the judgment, the contractor alleges payment was never made.
Court Reopens Judgment Years Later
Under Connecticut law, default judgments are generally considered final unless specific procedural standards are met.
On January 20, 2026, Judge Barry Stevens of the Connecticut Superior Court granted a Motion to Open Default, effectively allowing the defendants to relitigate issues tied to the original dispute.
The reopening comes more than three years after the clerk-entered default was finalized and nearly four years after the original lien action was filed.
The defendants are represented by McCabe, Wikstrom & Barney, LLC, according to court filings. Attorney Michael J. McCabe signed multiple motions and pleadings on behalf of the homeowners, including filings seeking to dissolve the mechanic’s lien and reopen the case.
Background of the Dispute
According to the original complaint, Munroe’s company provided plumbing labor and materials at 10 Flax Mill Lane in Milford, beginning in early 2021. The contractor filed a mechanic’s lien in April 2021 for $4,245, asserting unpaid labor and materials under Connecticut General Statutes §49-33 .
Court filings allege written notice was provided to the homeowners and that a lis pendens was properly recorded in connection with the foreclosure action .
In response filings submitted in January 2026, the defendants argue there was no formal contract, claim billing disputes, and allege improper charges — defenses now being reintroduced despite the earlier default judgment .
A Second Attempt to Vacate the Judgment
On January 19, 2026, the defendants filed a Motion for Discharge of Mechanic’s Lien, requesting the substitution of a bond in place of the lien — another procedural move that, if successful, could delay or complicate collection efforts .
In a separate and unrelated matter previously reported on by Presence News, McCabe, Wikstrom & Barney, LLC represented Progressive Direct Insurance Company in a Connecticut lawsuit stemming from the 2022 theft of a 2020 Sea Hunt 27 Gamefish from Clinton Harborside Marina, LLC. Progressive, which had paid more than $130,000 to its insured, Greg D. Donofrio, alleged the marina was negligent; however, the marina pointed to contract language requiring the boat owner to maintain insurance. After the insurer’s claims failed to prevail, Donofrio separately filed a second negligence action through different counsel asserting similar allegations, but the court ultimately rejected a Motion to Reargue/Reconsider, citing established precedent that such motions are not intended to provide a “second bite at the apple,” effectively closing both actions. (See article below for more information on the stolen boat case)
Broader Implications for Contractors
Legal experts note that reopening default judgments years later can place significant financial strain on small contractors, particularly when payment has already been delayed for extended periods.
For tradespeople operating on thin margins, the cost of renewed litigation — even after a judgment — can rival or exceed the amount originally owed.
The case remains pending in the Ansonia-Milford Judicial District, where further proceedings are expected.
Presence News welcomes response from counsel of both parties for comment. No responses have been received as of 01/24/26.
Editor’s Disclaimer
Editor’s Note: This report is based on publicly available court records. Allegations remain subject to judicial determination. All parties are presumed innocent of wrongdoing unless proven otherwise in court.
More at Presence News:
