188 Conn. App. 196
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Decedent Connor Kusmit died in a bicycle-vehicle collision; coadministrators (Christopher and Kelly Kusmit) retained counsel and pursued wrongful death and underinsured motorist claims.
- Plaintiffs initially engaged Mahoney’s firm on a one‑third contingency for the wrongful death claim; Mahoney recovered $50,000 and took his fee; plaintiffs later retained John Mills for the underinsured motorist claim.
- Mills settled the underinsured motorist claim for $200,000; a dispute arose over $66,666.67 in contingency fees Mills sought from that settlement (the “disputed fees”), with Mahoney claiming a portion.
- Probate Court allocated $40,000 to Mahoney and $26,666.67 to Mills; plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court, which entered the same allocation and ordered Mills (holding the funds) to disburse $40,000 to Mahoney and return $26,666 to the estate.
- Plaintiffs appealed to this court arguing they were aggrieved by the allocation because they contend the disputed fees belong to Mills’s firm (a nonparty), even though plaintiffs admit the estate remains obligated to pay the fees and will not pay more than originally expected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal (aggrievement) | Plaintiffs claim injury because allocation gives disputed fees to Mahoney rather than Mills’s firm; as estate fiduciaries they have an interest in allocation | Mahoney asserted plaintiffs lack a specific, legal interest because the estate disclaims any claim to the fees and plaintiffs remain obligated to pay no more than expected | Plaintiffs lack standing: not statutorily aggrieved and not classically aggrieved because they have no specific personal/legal interest and show no special injurious effect |
| Right to contest allocation of fees on behalf of nonparty (Mills Law Firm) | Plaintiffs sought relief on grounds that fees belong to Mills’s firm (nonparty) and thus challenge allocation | Mahoney maintained Miller/Mills firm’s interest is not before the court; plaintiffs cannot litigate a nonparty’s entitlement absent aggrievement | Court rejected plaintiffs’ ability to appeal on behalf of a nonparty; plaintiffs disavowed any estate claim and so lack standing |
| Claim that Superior Court erred in awarding equitable fees beyond contingency agreement | Plaintiffs argued trial court improperly allowed equitable recovery for fees beyond written contingency agreement | Mahoney argued allocation was appropriate under the circumstances and parties’ conduct | Court did not reach merits because of lack of jurisdiction (standing) |
| Whether plaintiffs pay more in total fees as a result of allocation | Plaintiffs suggested allocation could affect their financial obligation | Plaintiffs conceded at argument the estate remains obligated to pay the same total fee and will not pay more than contemplated | Court noted plaintiffs admitted no increased financial burden, supporting lack of aggrievement |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulmacz v. Kulmacz, 177 Conn. 410 (discusses appellate jurisdiction and requirement that issue of jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)
- Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Haida Investments Ltd., 318 Conn. 476 (sets out classical and statutory aggrievement tests for standing)
- Estate of Rock v. University of Connecticut, 323 Conn. 26 (explains that an estate is not a legal entity and cannot sue or be sued)
- Estate of Brooks v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 325 Conn. 705 (addresses the proper party plaintiff when an estate’s interests are litigated)