Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare
173 A.3d 994
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Frauenglass & Associates, LLC sued Enagbare for unpaid legal fees arising from her 2008 marital dissolution representation; the trial court awarded the firm $33,189.97 (fees + interest).
- Enagbare appealed; this court affirmed the underlying judgment in Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare, 149 Conn. App. 103.
- After affirmance, Frauenglass moved for postjudgment statutory interest and for attorney’s fees for trial and appellate work; Weinstein (plaintiff’s counsel) submitted affidavits and itemized statements.
- At hearings before Judge Elgo, Enagbare repeatedly challenged the validity and reasonableness of the original invoices and alleged fabrication and overbilling; she did not move to open the underlying judgment on fraud grounds.
- The trial court awarded $29,067.50 in attorney’s fees (trial + appellate aggregate) and statutory interest from the date of the underlying judgment through payment; it denied Enagbare’s motion for reconsideration.
- Enagbare appealed the postjudgment award, asserting newly discovered fraud, fabrication/tampering, criminal tampering under § 53a-155(a), and CUTPA violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenges to fees charged in the underlying dissolution case may be litigated in the postjudgment fee-and-interest proceeding | The postjudgment motions sought fees for prosecuting/enforcing the judgment; challenges to the underlying fee judgment are a collateral attack and untimely | The underlying invoices were fraudulent/excessive, so the fee award and collection are improper | The court held these arguments are an improper collateral attack on an adjudicated judgment and cannot be relitigated in the postjudgment proceeding |
| Whether the court improperly failed to consider newly discovered evidence of fraud regarding the underlying judgment | Plaintiff: no new properly presented motion to open the underlying judgment was filed; fraud allegations were not before Judge Elgo | Defendant: she presented new evidence and claimed the judgment was obtained by fraud | Held: Defendant did not file a motion to open the underlying judgment on fraud and did not properly present the issue below; appellate court declines to consider it for the first time on appeal |
| Whether allegations that plaintiff’s counsel fabricated invoices/tampered with evidence warranted relief in the postjudgment hearing | Plaintiff: counsel’s fee affidavits and records supported the requested fees; fabrication claims relate to the underlying case already adjudicated | Defendant: Weinstein fabricated invoices and tampered with evidence, constituting fraud and criminal conduct under § 53a-155(a) | Held: Allegations primarily concern the underlying fees and were not properly pleaded or litigated below; appellate court will not consider these claims now |
| Whether CUTPA or breach/good faith claims against the firm alter fee/interest award | Plaintiff: fee award and statutory interest are supported by record and agreement; CUTPA assertions are collateral to the enforcement proceeding | Defendant: plaintiff’s conduct violated CUTPA and breached duties, justifying denial or reduction of fees | Held: CUTPA and related breach claims either improperly attack the prior judgment or were not properly raised below, so they are not considered in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare, 149 Conn. App. 103 (affirming underlying judgment for unpaid legal fees) (prior appellate decision in the same dispute)
- Cimino v. Cimino, 174 Conn. App. 1 (prohibiting collateral attacks on final judgments)
- Brody v. Brody, 153 Conn. App. 625 (motion to open judgment based on fraud not subject to four-month limitation; procedure for fraud-based challenges)
- Terry v. Terry, 102 Conn. App. 215 (same principle regarding motion to open for fraud)
- Rostad v. Hirsch, 148 Conn. App. 441 (recognition of statutory postjudgment interest under § 37-3a)