190 Conn.App. 853
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2009; dissolution judgment provided each party would bear their own counsel and expert fees.
- Parties engaged in extensive postjudgment litigation and entered multiple court‑approved arbitration agreements to resolve certain postjudgment disputes, including some fee requests.
- Plaintiff filed a March 19, 2014 postjudgment motion for attorney’s fees (signed by Truax) and later a separate fee submission by Cohen; parties agreed at the arbitration hearing to allow the arbitrator to decide Cohen’s fee claim.
- Arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $444,116.17 in postjudgment attorney’s fees (Truax and Cohen) and referred some fee issues back to the court; awards included fees for (1) Truax’s work including time spent complying with an arbitrator’s order, and (2) fees tied to motions to reargue the dissolution judgment.
- Trial court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the defendant’s motion to vacate in part; defendant appealed raising preservation, conformity‑to‑submission, public policy, and supervisory‑authority arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of Truax’s fees for work complying with arbitrator’s order failed to conform to the submission | DeChellis failed to preserve that argument; trial record shows different objections | Award should be vacated because compliance work was not submitted to arbitrator and thus outside the submission | Not preserved on appeal; claim not distinctly or functionally raised below, so court declined review |
| Whether award of Cohen’s fees violated § 46b‑66(c)/public policy or failed to conform to submission | Parties agreed before arbitrator to include Cohen’s motion; defendant did not raise this conformity/public‑policy claim below | Award violates public policy and was never court‑approved for arbitration under § 46b‑66(c) | Not preserved; defendant expressly agreed at arbitration to submit Cohen’s claim; plain‑error review denied (no clear, obvious, manifest injustice) |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded powers by awarding fees for motions to reargue contrary to dissolution judgment (‘‘undid’’ financial mosaic) | Plaintiff: defendant did not preserve this distinct argument and earlier objections focused on insufficiency of evidence and use of current finances | Award impermissibly contradicted dissolution judgment requiring each party to bear own fees | Not preserved; trial court not asked to decide that specific principle below, so appellate review denied |
| Whether appellate court should exercise supervisory authority to reverse court’s approval of arbitration/clarify § 46b‑66(c) application | Plaintiff: supervisory relief not warranted; ordinary remedies adequate | Supervisory intervention needed to provide guidance about court approval of arbitration of postdissolution fee claims under § 46b‑66(c) | Denied—supervisory power is extraordinary and traditional protections were adequate; not a pervasive or exceptional administration‑of‑justice problem |
Key Cases Cited
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (Connecticut 2010) (appellate preservation requires distinct raising of claims in trial court)
- 21st Century North America Ins. Co. v. Perez, 177 Conn. App. 802 (Conn. App. 2017) (claims must be distinctly raised and decided below for appellate review)
- State v. Santana, 313 Conn. 461 (Conn. 2014) (functional preservation requires arguing underlying principles at trial)
- McMahon v. Middletown, 181 Conn. App. 68 (Conn. App. 2018) (substance of claim may suffice for preservation if clearly raised)
- In re Sydnei V., 168 Conn. App. 538 (Conn. App. 2016) (plain‑error doctrine two‑step framework and demanding standard)
- State v. Fuller, 158 Conn. App. 378 (Conn. App. 2015) (scope and sparing use of supervisory authority)
- Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 190 Conn. 26 (Connecticut 1983) (attorney‑fee awards should not undermine other financial orders)