East Windsor v. East Windsor Housing, Ltd.
92 A.3d 955
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- East Windsor (plaintiff) brought nine separate tax-lien foreclosure actions against East Windsor Housing, Ltd., LLC (defendant) for unpaid property taxes covering multiple years; two properties sold and the defendant paid taxes/fees on those sales.
- Defendant later paid taxes/fees for the remaining seven properties and asserted payment as a special defense, claiming it had paid more than reasonable attorneys’ fees, marshal and title-search costs.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on the seven consolidated cases, arguing full payment and that previously paid fees exceeded reasonable amounts.
- At hearing the trial court consolidated the seven matters, requested affidavits of fees, and ultimately found the $3,783.50 already paid in attorneys’ fees (from the two sold properties) to be reasonable for all nine properties and awarded costs for title searches and marshal fees where appropriate.
- Town appealed, arguing (1) the trial court effectively awarded no attorneys’ fees for the seven remaining foreclosures and (2) the $3,783.50 award was unreasonably low compared to the fees claimed (about $22,832.60 requested).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court awarded no attorneys’ fees for the seven remaining foreclosures | Court’s order resulted in zero fees for the seven properties | Court found the $3,783.50 previously paid covered reasonable fees for the nine properties | Court’s order meant the $3,783.50 was adequate and reasonable for all nine properties; plaintiff misinterprets the order — claim rejected |
| Whether the fee amount ($3,783.50) was an abuse of discretion | Amount is inadequate given attorney’s billed hours and claimed fees; effective hourly rate would be very low | Court may discount duplicative or excessive claimed hours; overlap among nearly identical cases justified reduction | No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably assessed fees and could disallow excessive/duplicative time |
| Whether the parties’ prior agreement on fees for two sold properties bound the court’s fee determination | Plaintiff contends the agreement didn’t intend to cover other seven actions | Defendant relied on the payment as proof of reasonable fee | Court not bound by parties’ agreement; statutory duty to determine reasonable fees under § 12-166 rests with the court |
| Whether appellate review was limited by absence of articulation/record | Plaintiff did not seek articulation of trial court’s reasoning | Defendant argued fee reduction was supported by record and trial court’s discretion | Appellant bore burden to request articulation; absence of it limited appellate review; court presumed in favor of trial court’s exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (interpreting judgments and court intent)
- Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 307 Conn. 608 (statutory authorization for recovery of attorneys’ fees)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (factors and standards for awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1 (trial court’s equitable discretion to withhold certain fees in multiple tax-lien foreclosures)
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (burden on party claiming attorneys’ fees to present statement of fees and services)