Historic District Commission v. Sciame
152 Conn.App. 161
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Historic District Commission sued to enforce a certificate of appropriateness and sought attorney’s fees under §7-147h.
- Trial court awarded $50,654.87 in attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses to the Commission.
- Defendants challenged the award on grounds of no explicit finding of violation and improper recovery for defending a counterclaim.
- Court held §7-147h fines are directory, not mandatory, and fees may be awarded without fines under certain circumstances.
- Post-judgment, the court found the enforcement action appropriate and awarded fees; the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7-147h fines are mandatory. | Fines are authorized; enforcement mechanism is strong. | Fines are mandatory to punish violations and support fee awards. | Fines under §7-147h are directory; fee award permissible without mandatory fines. |
| Whether a court must label defendants as violators to award fees. | Compliance order suffices to trigger §7-147h authority. | Labeling as violator is required for fee entitlement. | An enforcement order to comply suffices; fee award permissible without explicit violator finding. |
| Whether fees for defending a counterclaim may be awarded under §7-147h. | Counterclaim fees are incurred in connection with enforcement action. | Counterclaim fees are not covered absent explicit statutory authority. | Fees incurred defending the counterclaim were statutorily authorized under §7-147h. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenfield v. Reynolds, 1 A.3d 125 (Conn. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation and may vs shall considerations)
- Stamford v. Stephenson, 829 A.2d 26 (Conn. App. 2003) (courts may exercise discretion to impose daily fines under similar statutes)
- Monroe v. Renz, 698 A.2d 328 (Conn. App. 1997) (shall vs may; directory vs mandatory analysis)
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 848 A.2d 418 (Conn. 2004) (interpretation of shall/may; mandatory time limitation factors)
- United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, 692 A.2d 742 (Conn. 1997) (shall vs may in related statutory provisions)