Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 151 A.3d 404

Meadowbrook sued Buchman (responsible party) on a nursing-home admission contract; trial court entered judgment for Meadowbrook with attorney’s fees to be decided postjudgment.
On appeal this court reversed and directed judgment for Buchman; the remand judgment for Buchman was entered April 30, 2014.
Buchman filed a bill of costs May 16, 2014 and then a motion for attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-150bb on June 4, 2014 (35 days after judgment).
Trial court denied the fee motion as untimely under Practice Book § 11-21 (30-day filing rule) and declined to treat the timing requirement as directory.
Buchman sought reconsideration; denial followed and he appealed. The appellate court considered whether § 11-21’s 30-day requirement is mandatory or directory vis-à-vis the substantive, mandatory right created by § 42-150bb.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 30-day filing rule in Practice Book § 11-21 is mandatory or directory	§ 11-21 is mandatory; untimely motions must be denied	§ 11-21 is directory; court may excuse short delay to vindicate statutory rights	§ 11-21 is directory (procedural; secures order/dispatch), so court has discretion to excuse short delay
Whether § 42-150bb attorney-fee entitlement is substantive and mandatory	N/A (plaintiff conceded statute applies but urged strict rule compliance)	§ 42-150bb creates a mandatory, substantive right to fees for a successful consumer	§ 42-150bb creates a mandatory substantive right to reasonable fees; timing rule cannot nullify it
Whether the trial court was required to exercise discretion before denying fees	Trial court acted properly by denying untimely motion	Trial court should have considered excusing five-day delay under Practice Book § 1-8 and § 11-21 discretion	Trial court erred by treating § 11-21 as mandatory and failing to exercise discretion; remand for hearing
Proper procedural vehicle for § 42-150bb fees	Fees may be denied if procedural rules not followed; § 11-21 governs	Motion under Practice Book § 11-21 is the proper vehicle; timing may be excused	Traystman confirms § 11-21 is the proper vehicle; timing issue unresolved there but court here allows discretion

Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (recognizing § 42-150bb mandates fee awards to successful consumers)
Traystman, Coric & Kermamides, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418 (motion under Practice Book § 11-21 is the appropriate vehicle for consumer-contract fees)
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 219 Conn. 473 (timing provisions phrased in affirmative and without penalty are directory; test for mandatory vs directory)
Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 307 Conn. 608 (discussing § 42-150bb’s legislative purpose to balance consumer/commercial equities)
Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723 (rules of practice interpreted like statutes; plenary review of statutory/rule interpretation)