190 Conn. App. 853
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marriage dissolved in Jan. 2009; dissolution judgment provided each party would pay their own counsel and expert fees.
- Parties entered into court‑approved arbitration agreements (2012, amended 2013, 2014) to resolve postjudgment disputes, including most fee claims; parties submitted several fee motions to the arbitrator.
- Plaintiff’s March 19, 2014 postjudgment motion for fees (signed by Truax) sought fees incurred and to be incurred for various postjudgment motions; Cohen later filed a separate postjudgment fee motion.
- Arbitrator awarded plaintiff $444,116.17 in fees (Truax and Cohen fees among them) and referred some issues back to the court; plaintiff moved to confirm, defendant moved to vacate in part.
- Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied defendant’s partial motion to vacate; defendant appealed, raising multiple preservation and conformity/public‑policy arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fees for Truax’s time spent complying with arbitrator’s orders conform to the submission | Plaintiff: Defendant failed to preserve this claim below; arbitration record supports award | DeChellis: Award includes fees for Truax’s work to comply with arbitrator’s order, which were not submitted to arbitrator and thus do not conform to the submission | Not preserved on appeal; claim rejected for lack of preservation |
| 2. Award of Cohen’s fees conforms and is lawful without court approval under § 46b‑66(c) | Plaintiff: Defendant agreed at arbitration to include Cohen’s motion; claim not raised below | DeChellis: Court never approved arbitration of Cohen’s fee claim as required by § 46b‑66(c); award violates public policy and fails to conform | Not preserved; plain‑error doctrine not invoked because no clear, manifest injustice shown |
| 3. Fees for motions to reargue conflict with dissolution judgment (each pays own fees) | Plaintiff: Defendant did not preserve argument that arbitrator exceeded power by undermining dissolution adjudication | DeChellis: Arbitrator’s award of reargue‑related fees improperly refashions dissolution court’s “financial mosaic” and exceeds authority | Not preserved; appellate claim differs from arguments presented below, so forfeited |
| 4. Court approval under § 46b‑66(c) requires guidance / supervisory review | Plaintiff: Supervisory review unnecessary; standard procedures and preservation rules suffice | DeChellis: Issue of § 46b‑66(c) application warrants supervisory intervention and reversal of court approval of arbitration of March 19, 2014 motion | Court declines to exercise supervisory authority; not an extraordinary systemic problem |
Key Cases Cited
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (claims must be distinctly raised and decided in trial court to preserve appellate review)
- 21st Century North America Ins. Co. v. Perez, 177 Conn. App. 802 (2017) (requirement that claims be distinctly raised before trial court; no review of unpreserved issues)
- State v. Santana, 313 Conn. 461 (2014) (functional preservation requires arguing underlying principles at trial level)
- In re Sydnei V., 168 Conn. App. 538 (2016) (plain‑error doctrine is extraordinary; requires clear, obvious error producing manifest injustice)