Marcus v. Cassara, 142 Conn. App. 352

Defendant Dawn Cassara sought joint custody and incurred substantial attorney’s fees in the custody action against Adrian Marcus.
Trial court awarded defendant physical custody and final decision-making authority to defendant after an eight-day trial in 2009.
Court reserved ruling on attorney’s fees until affidavits were exchanged; hearing could be scheduled if requested.
Defendant filed affidavits detailing fees; plaintiff challenged reasonableness of the amount.
Defendant moved for attorney’s fees post-judgment; court denied the motion in May 2010; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing	Cassara argues hearing was required to test fee reasonableness	Marcus contends no hearing was necessary; record supports decision	No error; defendant waived hearing by agreement
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying any attorney’s fees	Cassara asserts findings show defendant cannot pay alone	Marcus contends financial positions and misconduct do not justify fees	Affirmed; court properly exercised discretion and declined fee award

Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 89 Conn. App. 459 (2005) (waiver can bar evidentiary hearing challenges)
Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121 (2009) (presumption favoring trial court’s correct decision in absence of contrary indications)
Moasser v. Becker, 121 Conn. App. 593 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard in awarding counsel fees)
Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (2007) (need for misconduct finding to justify fee award)
Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn. App. 493 (2003) (consider financial abilities and statutory criteria in §46b-62/§46b-82)
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 190 Conn. 26 (1983) (fees not awarded solely due to ability to pay)
Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492 (1980) (supportive of discretionary fee decisions based on financials)