136 Conn. App. 535
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- In 2010, Stratford sued Castater in three counts (money had and received, unjust enrichment, conversion) to recover $4,744.38 paid at termination of employment; the court ruled for Castater.
- Castater moved for reasonable attorney’s fees; Stratford objected; trial court denied the fee motion and denied reconsideration; Castater appealed.
- The trial court found Stratford’s case not frivolous and declined to apply the bad-faith exception to the American rule; it rejected § 31-72 applicability and declined to schedule a hearing on fees.
- Stratford’s underlying action involved contract/employee-payments disputes, though Castater argued the suit was in bad faith and/or unwarranted.
- The Court of Appeals reviews for abuse of discretion on attorney’s fees and applies strict construction to § 31-72; the underlying facts included disputed claims on counts one and two, with the third count lacking prima facie support.
- The opinion discusses that the plaintiff asserted colorable claims and did not act in bad faith, supporting the trial court’s denial of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bad-faith basis for fee award | Stratford’s action showed colorable claims. | Castater contends the action was pursued in bad faith with no colorable basis. | Court affirmed denial of fees; no bad-faith finding. |
| Applicability of § 31-72 | § 31-72 provides for doubled damages and fees when an employee sues for unpaid wages. | § 31-72 should apply or at least be construed to cover fees in this context. | Court held § 31-72 inapplicable; strict construction; action did not fit § 31-72’s scope. |
| Procedural propriety of fee denial ruling | Hearing on fees should have been held; standard for hearings not met. | Waiver and lack of right to a hearing; no abuse of discretion. | Court held no abuse of discretion; no mandatory hearing required; waiver confirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (2003) (bad-faith exception requires clear evidence of colorless and improper conduct)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (supreme court: bad-faith awards require clear evidence of harassment or improper purposes)
- Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133 (2004) (trial court abuse of discretion on fee awards; illustrates standards for bad-faith analysis)
- ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 576 (2007) (bad-faith exception; discuss limits and necessity of colorable claims)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364 (2011) (discusses colorable claims and sanctions framework)
- Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 304 Conn. 754 (2012) (affirmation of award denial where bad faith not found; good-faith arguments presented)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 294 Conn. 484 (2010) (statutory interpretation of fee-shifting rules; plain language strict construction)
- Westport v. Bossert Corp., 165 Conn. 410 (1973) (foundational aid on equitable recovery principles in actions for money due)