154 Conn.App. 196
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Parties: Defendant Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC obtained a $200,000 arbitration award (Dec. 12, 2007) against plaintiffs Alfred and Barbara Marulli; the award included interest.
- Procedural history: Plaintiffs timely moved in superior court to vacate the award; the court vacated it, the defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed and directed the trial court to confirm the arbitration award (Marulli v. Wood Frame Constr. Co., LLC).
- Trial court entered judgment confirming the award on July 21, 2011 (no appeal from that judgment).
- More than 20 months later, on April 4, 2013, defendant moved for a written signed judgment establishing the amount owed, costs, and postjudgment interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a.
- On April 23, 2013 the trial court (Aurigemma, J.) granted the motion, set total owed at $307,686.51, and awarded 10% interest running from December 13, 2007 (the day after the arbitrator’s award) through the judgment date and continuing per diem.
- Plaintiffs appealed, contesting (1) the court’s authority to grant the motion/calculations and (2) the propriety and timing of the § 37-3a interest award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had authority to grant defendant’s motion for a written signed judgment and calculate amounts due | Marulli: Court lacked authority; post-arbitration actions limited to confirming award under § 52-417 and could not compute damages or enter new calculations | Wood Frame: Judgment confirming arbitration award is a civil judgment; court may enforce it and take actions available for civil judgments (§ 52-421(b)) | Court: Authority existed; judgment confirming award is treated like a civil judgment and court could enter a written signed judgment, assess costs, and award interest |
| Whether trial court erred by awarding postjudgment interest without a hearing or explicit findings | Marulli: Court erred by not holding a hearing and failing to make required factual findings supporting interest, amount, and start date | Wood Frame: No hearing required; record and prior rulings provided facts for exercising discretion under § 37-3a | Court: No hearing or express findings required; record sufficed and plaintiff failed to identify additional facts; award not reversed on this basis |
| Whether 10% interest rate was an abuse of discretion | Marulli: The court should not automatically apply 10%; rate must be justified | Wood Frame: § 37-3a permits up to 10%; trial court has discretion to set rate | Court: No abuse shown; applying 10% was within court’s broad discretion absent contrary record showing |
| Proper start date for § 37-3a interest (date interest began to run) | Marulli: Interest cannot run from day after arbitrator’s award (Dec. 13, 2007) because award was subject to timely judicial review and was vacated for a period; interest should run from the date money became payable | Wood Frame: Interest may run from arbitrator’s award date | Court: Reversed as to duration — interest may not run from Dec. 13, 2007; applying Gary Excavating principles, interest may run from the date the appellate mandate made the award payable (Appellate Court decision release date), so interest should begin no earlier than Oct. 19, 2010; remanded to adjust duration accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505 (App. Ct.) (appellate reversal directing trial court to render judgment confirming arbitration award)
- Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, 163 Conn. 428 (Conn. 1972) (when appellate mandate directs trial court to render judgment confirming arbitration award, interest runs from date of mandate/opinion)
- Sosin v. Sosin, 300 Conn. 205 (Conn. 2011) (§ 37-3a interpreted to allow interest for detention of money once underlying judgment establishes wrongful detention; findings need not be exhaustive)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 310 Conn. 38 (Conn. 2013) (postjudgment interest under § 37-3a is discretionary and should compensate for loss of use of money; factors are equitable)
- Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Windham, 146 Conn. App. 768 (App. Ct.) (judgment confirming arbitration award is to be treated in all respects as a civil judgment under § 52-421(b))