Rinfret v. Porter
164 A.3d 812
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties: Peter Rinfret (U.S. citizen, plaintiff/father) sued Melissa Porter (U.K. citizen, defendant/mother) in Connecticut for custody of their child after they lived in UK and the child resided primarily with defendant.
- Prior foreign proceedings: UK Stockport family action and a Hague Convention proceeding occurred in 2011–2012; UK courts ordered interim support and found UK habitual residence for the child.
- Connecticut action: plaintiff filed a custody application in Nov.–Dec. 2011; defendant moved to dismiss asserting forum non conveniens, foreign custody determination, and consent to UK jurisdiction; lengthy hearings followed.
- Procedural: Defendant moved for attorney’s fees in Jan. 2015 claiming the custody suit was brought "entirely without color" and in bad faith; trial court adopted 28 factual findings largely from defendant’s proposed findings and issued a brief oral ruling awarding $87,548.11 in fees.
- Trial court ruling: Court concluded generally that plaintiff’s claims were entirely without color and that he acted in bad faith over a four‑year period, but did not specify which facts supported each required component.
- Appellate disposition: Connecticut Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court failed to make the distinct, highly specific findings required to award fees under the bad‑faith exception to the American rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly awarded attorney's fees under the bad‑faith exception | Rinfret argued fees award was improper because court lacked the necessary specific findings that his claims were entirely without color and that he acted in bad faith | Porter argued the custody suit was wholly without color and prosecuted for improper purposes (retaliation/harassment), justifying fees | Reversed: trial court failed to make separate, highly specific findings that the claims were entirely without color and that plaintiff acted in bad faith; remanded |
| Whether the court identified the factual or legal basis for "entirely without color" | Rinfret asserted court did not specify whether lack of color was factual (best‑interest impossibility) or legal (frivolous) | Porter relied on record items and foreign findings to show claims lacked color | Held: court did not indicate whether lack of color was based on factual merits or legal insufficiency; absence of such articulation fatal to fees award |
| Whether trial court’s adoption of defendant’s proposed findings and its oral procedure met specificity requirements | Rinfret contended the court’s procedure (adopting opposing proposed facts and brief oral ruling) impeded meaningful, separate findings | Porter maintained adopted findings and record supported bad‑faith conclusion | Held: procedural approach (adopting 28 proposed findings without tying them to each required element) left the findings ambiguous and insufficient under precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (Conn. 2004) (bad‑faith exception requires findings that claims were entirely without color and were brought for improper purposes)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2012) (requires separate, specific findings for lack of color and bad faith; high hurdle for fee awards)
- Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 304 Conn. 754 (Conn. 2012) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for attorney’s‑fee awards)
- Kupersmith v. Kupersmith, 146 Conn. App. 79 (Conn. App. 2013) (trial court’s general findings that a motion was without color/bad faith inadequate without specific factual support)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364 (Conn. App. 2011) (example of legal‑merit basis for finding lack of color where contractual merger barred claim)
- Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986) (focus for sanctions should be on the litigation in which fees are sought)