210 Conn.App. 340
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Taylor sued Pollner for adverse possession of a portion of her property; Pollner counterclaimed (including a quiet title count).
- The court issued an expedited scheduling order with discovery deadlines and warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions.
- Taylor sought an extension for his deposition which the court denied after finding insufficient medical evidence; scheduling order remained in effect.
- On December 16, 2020, Pollner filed two Practice Book § 1-21A motions for order seeking attorney’s fees ($4,859.55 and $5,800) supported by counsel affidavits; Taylor did not oppose or respond.
- Taylor withdrew his complaint; the court tried the remaining quiet title claim, ruled for Pollner, and granted the motions for order, awarding a total of $10,659.55 in fees as sanctions for Taylor’s discovery and conduct violations.
- Taylor appealed, arguing the fee award was an abuse of discretion and excessive; the appellate court affirmed, declining to review the fee challenges because Taylor failed to object below.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees as sanctions | Taylor: award was an abuse of discretion and not justified | Pollner: fees were proper sanctions for Taylor’s discovery violations and misconduct; motions were supported | Court affirmed; declined review because Taylor did not object below in accordance with governing precedent |
| Whether the awarded attorney’s fees were excessive or unreasonable | Taylor: amounts were excessive/clearly erroneous | Pollner: amounts were documented by affidavits and reasonable | Court refused to review the amounts on appeal due to Taylor’s failure to contest them at trial |
| Whether Taylor’s due process rights were violated by awarding fees without a hearing | Taylor: no hearing violated due process | Pollner: no preserved constitutional claim; plaintiff didn’t seek Golding review | Court deemed the constitutional claim unpreserved and inadequately briefed for Golding review |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (proponent of attorney’s fees must present evidence of fees and opposing party must object to preserve challenge)
- Kirwan v. Kirwan, 187 Conn. App. 375 (issues not raised below are generally not reviewed on appeal)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modification of Golding review requirements)