Lederle v. Spivey
AC37755
| Conn. App. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Catherine Lederle obtained a 2007 dissolution judgment allowing her and the child to relocate to Virginia; Stevan Spivey appealed and lost.
- Spivey filed an amended motion to open the judgment alleging the plaintiff had committed fraud by failing to disclose postjudgment job changes; the trial court (Emons, J.) denied that motion.
- Spivey appealed the denial; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the fraud-based motion to open failed as a matter of law because the continuing duty to disclose ends when the dissolution judgment is final.
- Lederle moved for attorney’s fees for defending Spivey’s appeal under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule; after hearings the trial court awarded $30,000, finding the appeal lacked any indicia of a colorable claim and was brought in bad faith.
- On appeal from the fee award, the Appellate Court held the trial court adequately supported its bad-faith finding but failed to apply the correct party-based standard for colorability or to make sufficiently specific factual findings on colorability; the fee award was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly awarded fees under bad-faith exception to American Rule | Lederle: Spivey’s appeal lacked any indicia of a colorable claim and was brought in bad faith, justifying fees | Spivey: Record did not support finding his appeal was entirely without color or that he acted in bad faith; trial court failed to make specific findings | Reversed: trial court’s bad-faith finding was supported, but it failed to apply the correct party-based colorability standard and did not make sufficiently specific factual findings on colorability; remand for new hearing |
| Proper standard for colorability when sanctions target a party (not counsel) | Lederle: (implicit) appeal was frivolous under established bad-faith case law | Spivey: must be judged by party-standard (reasonable person with firsthand knowledge) and record did not meet that test | Held: Court must use party-based standard (reasonable person given firsthand knowledge) per Maris and make detailed findings |
| Whether trial court made findings with required specificity | Lederle: trial court’s memorandum identified transcripts and stipulation, supporting findings | Spivey: memorandum lacked high degree of specificity re: colorability as required by Maris | Held: Findings on bad faith were specific; findings on colorability were not sufficiently specific, so award cannot stand |
| Whether $30,000 fee award was reasonable | Lederle: fee was reasonable based on evidentiary hearing | Spivey: challenges reasonableness contingent on reversal of basis for award | Held: Court did not reach substance of fee reasonableness due to reversal of basis; remand required for reconsideration after correct findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (requires both: claims entirely without color and bad faith, and mandates a high degree of specificity in findings; sets party-based colorability standard)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012) (reiterates Maris: both colorability and bad faith findings required before awarding fees)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (2011) (explains differing colorability standards for attorneys vs. parties)
- Munro v. Munoz, 146 Conn. App. 853 (2013) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing fee awards; discusses bad-faith exception)
- Lederle v. Spivey, 151 Conn. App. 813 (2014) (underlying appeal affirming trial court denial of motion to open)
- Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671 (2005) (cited on duty to disclose principles)
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (1991) (cited on duty to disclose principles)
- Perry v. Perry, 312 Conn. 600 (2014) (trial court must apply Maris and make required findings)
- Keller v. Keller, 167 Conn. App. 138 (2016) (applies party-based colorability standard and affirms requirement for detailed findings)
- Kupersmith v. Kupersmith, 146 Conn. App. 79 (2013) (discusses necessity of specific factual support for bad-faith and colorability findings)
- Light v. Grimes, 156 Conn. App. 53 (2015) (reverses fee award where court did not find claims entirely without color and bad faith)