Rostad v. Hirsch
148 Conn. App. 441
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Paternity action Rostad v. Hirsch; trial court awarded pendente-lite and other fees; Rostad I (2011) reversed Devlin/Asch awards as abuse of discretion and remanded.
- On remand (May 3, 2012), court awarded plaintiff past due child support May 1, 2008–June 1, 2009 ($81,055), 10% interest on pendente lite fees, and additional fees ($127,552.58); denied past due May 15, 2005–April 30, 2008 and past due “special child support.”
- Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals seeking further relief including special child support and additional attorney’s fees.
- Appellate review centers on (i) §37-3a interest on pendente-lite fees, (ii) reasonableness of post-remand attorney’s fees, (iii) denial of special child support, and (iv) past-due support determinations for pre- and post-action periods.
- Court ultimately affirms the judgment and denies additional relief sought by plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §37-3a postjudgment interest on pendente lite fees was proper | Rostad argues detention of funds was wrongful and interest warranted | Hirsch contends no wrongful detention during pendency | Yes; interest awarded under §37-3a appropriate |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in awarding post-remand attorney’s fees | Plaintiff contends the amount reflects work performed and invoices | Defendant argues fees are excessive and not adequately justified | No; court acted within broad discretion in determining reasonableness of fees |
| Whether the court properly denied past due special child support for New Haven defense | Special child support should cover New Haven defense costs | No statutory/regulatory basis to award such special child support | Denied; court did not abuse discretion in denying special child support |
| Whether past due child support for May 1, 2008–June 1, 2009 was correctly awarded | Should reflect neglect/refusal to pay during pre-existing order | Credit for prior voluntary payments should be considered | affirmed; defendant’s nonpayment period justified past-due award; no credit for earlier voluntary payments |
| Whether past due child support for May 15, 2005–April 30, 2008 should be awarded under Maturo/§46b-215b | Guidelines should govern retroactive support for preaction period | Guidelines apply only if neglect/refusal found preaction | Denied; statutory framework precludes retroactive award absent neglect/refusal prior to action |
Key Cases Cited
- Rostad v. Hirsch, 128 Conn. App. 119 (2011) (reversed Devlin/Asch fees; law of the case on remand)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 310 Conn. 38 (2013) (role of wrongful detention under §37-3a; discretionary standard)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (2010) (earlier articulation of §37-3a standard; postremand distinctions)
- Kupersmith v. Kupersmith, 146 Conn. App. 79 (2013) (attorney’s fees; abuse of discretion standard)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (guidelines and deviation; statutory framework for child support)