Munro v. Munoz
146 Conn. App. 853
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Munro (plaintiff) and Munoz (defendant) divorced; they share two minor children and had a longtime custody arrangement giving plaintiff primary physical custody and joint legal custody.
- On July 26, 2011, defendant filed an emergency ex parte motion seeking sole legal and physical custody and no contact between plaintiff and children; the court granted temporary relief with supervised contact.
- Plaintiff returned to Connecticut, filed a responsive ex parte motion; a guardian ad litem was appointed and an agreement (Aug. 17, 2011) reinstated plaintiff's primary residence and joint legal custody, added monitoring/counseling, and left fees issues unresolved.
- Plaintiff later moved for counsel fees, costs, and supervisor fees (July 10, 2012), alleging defendant’s ex parte filing was without merit and made in bad faith to harass and financially burden her.
- At the September 2012 hearing the trial court limited plaintiff’s witnesses to testifying only about the dollar amounts of claimed bills, sustained objections to nonfinancial/bad-faith evidence, found defendant acted in good faith, and denied fees.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence on bad faith and that the good-faith finding was clearly erroneous because the record contained no evidence on the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding nonfinancial evidence relevant to bad-faith fee claim | Trial court prevented Munro from proving defendant’s ex parte motion was filed in bad faith by limiting testimony to bills | Objections asserted the hearing was limited to amounts of bills; nonfinancial issues were resolved earlier and not before the court now | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; plaintiff entitled to present evidence on bad faith |
| Whether defendant’s emergency ex parte motion was filed in good faith | Munro argued the motion was without color and filed to harass/financially burden her | Munoz maintained the motion was made in good faith based on alleged misconduct and reports to authorities | Reversed: trial court’s finding of good faith was clearly erroneous because record lacked evidence on bad faith due to exclusionary ruling |
| Standard and application of bad-faith exception to American Rule (attorney’s fees) | Plaintiff sought fees under inherent authority requiring proof claims were without color and filed in bad faith | Defendant contended no bad faith; motion justified by alleged escalating misconduct | Court reiterated Maris standard: must find claims entirely without color and bad faith; remanded for hearing applying that standard |
| Whether remand should be limited to amounts already found reasonable | Plaintiff sought full fee recovery if bad faith proven | Defendant did not challenge amounts reasonableness | Remand limited to whether bad-faith exception applies; trial court’s findings on amounts remain undisturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (applying bad-faith exception to award attorney's fees)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (trial court must find claims entirely without color and bad faith before imposing fees under inherent authority)
- Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133 (abuse of discretion standard for attorney's fees rulings)
- LaBossiere v. Jones, 117 Conn. App. 211 (presumption in favor of trial court rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Milford Bank v. Phoenix Contracting Group, Inc., 143 Conn. App. 519 (appellate review limited to correct legal application and reasonableness of conclusion)
- Renaissance Management Co. v. Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, 281 Conn. 227 (bad faith determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)
- Hibbard v. Hibbard, 139 Conn. App. 10 (clarifies clear-error standard for factual findings)