Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare
149 Conn. App. 103
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Defendant hired plaintiff to represent her in divorce; retainer $7,780; defendant owed $21,551.93 when termination occurred; case involved Nigerian law, child custody, and shifting goals during litigation.
- Attorney fact finder conducted multi-day hearing; defendant filed counterclaim on eve of hearing; court accepted findings over objections.
- Fact finder recommended judgment for plaintiff for $33,189.97 including interest; counterclaim and special defenses addressed in report, with judgment for plaintiff on counterclaim.
- Trial court overruled objections, accepted fact finder’s report, and entered judgment for plaintiff; defendant appealed as self-represented.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding no due process violation, the counterclaim was properly considered within the report, and the findings were not clearly erroneous.
- Defendant later filed articulation; court stated it had addressed relevant issues and remand was unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand for counterclaim | Enagbare lacks due process; no remand needed | Counterclaim not adequately addressed; due process requires remand | No due process violation; no remand required |
| Relevance of counterclaim and special defenses | Counterclaim resolved within fee dispute; defenses addressed | Defendant’s claims of misconduct and misbilling are relevant | Counterclaim and defenses properly addressed; irrelevant to fee action |
| Judicial discretion in approving findings | Findings supported by evidence; proper to approve | Findings contrary to evidence; abuse of discretion | Findings not clearly erroneous; judgment for plaintiff affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tayler F., 296 Conn. 524 (2010) (due process balancing test framework)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (2011) (application of Mathews test in Connecticut)
- Barros v. Barros, 309 Conn. 499 (2013) (procedural due process balancing considerations)
- Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155 (1999) (standard for reviewing trial court findings)
- Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656 (2000) (bias claim waiver principle)
- Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 300 Conn. 33 (2011) (appeals court posture on new claims raised on appeal)