160 Conn.App. 470
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Athena Holdings (plaintiff) operates a nursing home; Jan Marcus (defendant) signed an admission agreement as "Responsible Party" for his mother.
- Agreement obligated the Responsible Party to use resident assets/income for care and to establish/maintain Medicaid eligibility; it also provided for recovery of reasonable collection attorney’s fees by the facility.
- Plaintiff sued Marcus for $47,444, alleging three counts: breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligence; it sought damages and attorney’s fees under the contract.
- Trial court found for plaintiff on the breach of contract claim (awarding $15,778 based on specific transfers/withheld benefits) and for Marcus on promissory estoppel and negligence; court awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiff and denied fees to Marcus under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-150bb.
- Marcus moved for reconsideration arguing § 42-150bb entitles a consumer who successfully defends on some counts (even if losing the contract count) to fees; motion denied. Marcus appealed the denial of his fee request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-150bb | § 42-150bb requires success in defending the action based on the contract; plaintiff prevailed on the contract claim, so defendant did not successfully defend the action | Defendant prevailed on two of three counts (promissory estoppel and negligence) and that partial success qualifies as a "successful defense" under § 42-150bb | Court held defendant not entitled to fees: § 42-150bb awards fees to a consumer who successfully prosecutes or defends an action based upon the contract; because plaintiff prevailed on the breach-of-contract count (the only count based on the contract), defendant did not successfully defend the contract action |
Key Cases Cited
- Ugrin v. Cheshire, 307 Conn. 364 (legal standard: plenary review of statutory construction)
- Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 307 Conn. 608 (purpose of § 42-150bb: parity between commercial party and consumer defending contract actions)
- Cruz v. Montanez, 294 Conn. 357 (statutory interpretation principles; consider text and relationship to other statutes)
- Bobbin v. Sail the Sounds, LLC, 153 Conn. App. 716 (term "action" may vary by statute's purpose)
- Dreier v. Upjohn Co., 196 Conn. 242 (permitting alternative/inconsistent theories in a single complaint)
- State v. Mattioli, 210 Conn. 573 (use of legislative history when statutory language ambiguous)
- State v. Johnson, 227 Conn. 534 (courts must interpret statutes as written)
- Forsyth v. Rowe, 226 Conn. 818 (statutory interpretation authority)
- State v. Dupree, 196 Conn. 655 (statutory construction principles)
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33 (inconsistent theories: promissory estoppel appropriate only when no contract)