Rostad v. Hirsch
128 Conn. App. 119
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Contested paternity action after genetic testing confirms Hirsch as father; Rostad sought child support and pendente lite fees.
- Trial court awarded pendente lite fees: $145,489.03 to Rome McGuigan, P.C., $25,000 to Devlin, $10,000 to Asch; New Haven case fees excluded.
- Hirsch appeals solely the attorney’s fee awards, challenging reasonableness and inclusion of non-local or non-paternity related work.
- Court found Rome McGuigan’s fees reasonable; Devlin and Asch deemed overbroad due to lack of Connecticut licensing/experience and non-participation in hearings.
- Appellate court reverses as to Devlin and Asch, affirms as to Rome McGuigan, and remands for redetermination of Devlin and Asch fees; retains jurisdiction issue addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over pendente lite fees | Rostad argues Curcio doctrine allows appeal. | Hirsch contends no immediate reviewable finality. | We have jurisdiction to review. |
| Whether Devlin and Asch fees were properly awarded | Rostad contends fees justified given defense strategy. | Hirsch argues improper for non-Connecticut licensed counsel; overbilling and travel time questioned. | Awards to Devlin and Asch reversed; remanded for recalculation. |
| Whether Rome McGuigan fees were reasonable | Rostad asserts Rome McGuigan’s rates and itemization are appropriate. | Hirsch does not challenge Rome McGuigan's reasonableness on appeal. | Fees for Rome McGuigan affirmed. |
| Whether the New Haven case fees were properly excluded | Rostad argues inclusion was appropriate. | Hirsch contends exclusion was proper due to non-paternity action. | Exclusion sustained; remaining issues unaffected. |
| Overall scope of appellate review of attorney’s fees in paternity action | Rostad seeks de facto broad review of fee decisions. | Hirsch argues limited review is appropriate. | Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded for recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (establishes two-prong test for interlocutory appealability)
- Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515 (1988) (finality considerations in appeals from merits judgments)
- Benvenuto v. Mahajan, 245 Conn. 495 (1998) (attorney’s fees in final judgments; variability of finality)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 279 Conn. 220 (2006) (curio second prong guidance on irreparable harm and immediate appeal)
- Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn. App. 472 (2010) (reiterates approach to finality and remedial relief in pendente lite orders)
- Ahneman v. Ahneman, 243 Conn. 471 (1998) (statements on finality of financial issues in dissolution cases)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006) (relevant to immediate appellate review under Curcio)
- Sweeney v. Sweeney, 271 Conn. 193 (2004) (examples of interlocutory orders reviewed for irreparable harm)