213 Conn.App. 697
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Budlong & Budlong sued former client Angham Zakko for unpaid legal fees (complaint sought ~ $17,201). The case was referred to an attorney fact finder under Practice Book § 23‑53.
- At the fact‑finder hearing (Dec. 9, 2019) the plaintiff introduced two exhibits: a retainer agreement and a billing statement; the fact finder heard testimony and marked those exhibits.
- The attorney fact finder issued a very brief written report awarding the plaintiff $13,602.50 in fees plus interest (total judgment $17,602.50) and gave the defendant a $2,500 credit for alleged overbilling.
- The defendant (self‑represented at trial) filed timely objections raising eight grounds, including that the parties had agreed to a $10,000 capped fee and that the billing was excessive; she attached documents and argued the exhibits and factual support were defective.
- At the Practice Book § 23‑58 hearing the trial court acknowledged the retainer and bill were missing from the court file, nevertheless overruled the objection without reviewing those exhibits and entered judgment consistent with the fact‑finder report; an articulation later confirmed the court had not viewed exhibits 1 and 2.
- The Appellate Court reversed: it held the trial court erred by failing to review the evidence presented to the fact finder (or remand) and by accepting a report that lacked sufficient factual findings to support the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by overruling defendant's objection without reviewing all evidence the attorney fact finder considered | Plaintiff: defendant did not raise a bargained, capped $10,000 fee before the fact finder and her objection concerned only exclusion of certain exhibits | Defendant: court failed to review the retainer and billing exhibits necessary to evaluate claims of overbilling and a capped fee; court should have remanded or taken other action | Reversed — court must review all evidence presented to the fact finder when objections challenge evidentiary support; because exhibits were missing, the court should have remanded or otherwise acted under Practice Book § 23‑58(a) |
| Whether the attorney fact finder’s report contained sufficient factual findings to permit the court to render judgment | Plaintiff: challenges to sufficiency were not preserved (or otherwise insufficiently argued on appeal) | Defendant: report contained only one factual finding (representation was partially successful); that is insufficient to support the monetary award | Reversed — report lacked the subordinate factual findings required; a bare conclusion without factual underpinnings is insufficient for the court to enter judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks Building Co., LLC v. Malanga Family Real Estate Holding, LLC, 885 A.2d 204 (Conn. App. 2005) (when objections attack evidentiary support, trial court must review all evidence presented to the fact finder)
- Shapero v. Mercede, 808 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2002) (standard for reviewing fact‑finder factual findings: clearly erroneous)
- Silver Hill Hospital, Inc. v. Kessler, 240 A.3d 740 (Conn. App. 2020) (distinguishing legal conclusions from fact findings; trial court reviews legal conclusions plenarily)
- Data‑Flow Technologies, LLC v. Harte Nissan, Inc., 958 A.2d 195 (Conn. App. 2008) (reports must include sufficient factual findings; excluded exhibits must be reviewed when exclusion is challenged)
- Post Road Iron Works, Inc. v. Lexington Development Group, Inc., 736 A.2d 923 (Conn. App. 1999) (trial court may not supply missing subordinate facts; insufficient factual findings require rejection of report)