Francis v. Fonfara, 303 Conn. 292

Ernest Francis filed a declaratory judgment suit in Hartford against 185 state defendants including Fonfara; Francis obtained waivers of entry and service fees, including copies fee under §52-261(a)(2).
Francis’ son paid to make copies; the copies were used to serve 185 defendants; Stevenson did not personally make any copies.
Stevenson served process by leaving copies with an Assistant Attorney General, attesting each copy was true and identical to the original; copies exceeded 900 pages in total.
Francis submitted an invoice seeking $900 for copies under §52-261(a)(2); the trial court reviewed fees and denied the copies fee.
The trial court treated §52-261(a)(2) as ambiguous and denied extratextual evidence; the writ of error was granted to address the copies fee.
Connecticut Supreme Court grants the writ, reverses, and holds the copies fee is payable even if the process server did not personally make the copies, based on statutory interpretation and legislative history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §52-261(a)(2) payable when the process server did not create the copies?	Stevenson argues copies fee is not contingent on making copies.	Fonfara argues plain language limits fee to copies the server makes.	Ambiguous; fee payable regardless of who makes copies.
Should extratextual legislative history inform interpretation of §52-261(a)(2)?	Stevenson contends history supports paying copies fee irrespective of making copies.	Fonfara argues §1-2z precludes extratextual evidence if plain language is unambiguous.	Because language is ambiguous, legislative history may be consulted.
Did the trial court abuse discretion in denying the copies fee?	Stevenson contends denial was misapplication of law.	Fonfara contends discretion to set reasonable fees exists for other services; copies fee is discretionary.	No, the court improperly exercised discretion; statute requires the copies fee to be paid.

Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (statutory construction; use of text and extratextual guidance when ambiguity)
Tayco Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 294 Conn. 673 (2010) (ambiguity test; multiple reasonable interpretations)
Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1 (1999) (discretion in awarding costs; distinguish equity from pure law)
1-2z precedent, N/A (N/A) (statutory interpretation: rely on text and relationship to other statutes; extratextual evidence when ambiguous)
Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, 275 Conn. 105 (2005) (avoid advisory opinions; separation of powers considerations)
Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1 (1997) (avoid advisory opinions; real controversy required)