161 Conn.App. 348
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Windham signed a Subway franchise agreement (2005) and operated a store in Dover, Delaware; the agreement required arbitration for disputes.
- Subway initiated arbitration in 2009, an interim order required Windham to cure breaches; after alleged noncompliance, arbiter issued a final award (July 5, 2011) terminating the franchise and awarding Subway $250/day for each day after the award that Windham continued using Subway marks.
- Windham filed to vacate the arbitration award in Connecticut Superior Court (Aug 5, 2011); Subway opposed and, in the same filing, sought confirmation of the award (filed also in Delaware initially but later withdrawn).
- The Superior Court denied vacatur and confirmed the award (July 31, 2013). Subway then moved for a postconfirmation damages hearing seeking a monetary judgment (including a running $250/day penalty and other credits/fees).
- The court’s December 2, 2013 judgment reiterated the $250/day penalty language from the award but did not compute or enter a specific monetary sum or set the per diem’s start/end dates; Windham appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confirmation was improper because no separate application to confirm was filed in Connecticut | Windham: Confirmation was invalid because Subway did not file a distinct standalone application to confirm in Connecticut | Subway: Its objection to vacatur explicitly included an application to confirm and was timely; prior Delaware filing was withdrawn | Court: No error — Subway’s opposition pleading adequately served as an application to confirm under §52-417 and §52-421; confirmation was proper |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing $250/day effective before entry of final judgment | Windham: Judgment improperly imposes per diem for period before final judgment entry | Subway: Sought a postconfirmation hearing to reduce award to a monetary judgment including continuing $250/day accrual | Court: Did not decide the merits; remanded because trial court failed to compute and enter a definite money judgment as requested (court must calculate amount, start/end dates, and offsets) |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Komondy, 120 Conn. App. 117 (2010) (statutory interpretation principles and review standard)
- White v. Kampner, 229 Conn. 465 (1994) (favoring arbitration and limiting judicial interference)
- All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 94 Conn. App. 1 (2006) (standard of review for construction of arbitration award)
- Daoud v. Cook, 137 Conn. App. 766 (2012) (court must construe arbitration award and may interpret to effectuate arbitrator’s intent)
- Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Healey, 72 Conn. App. 334 (2002) (court’s inherent authority to enforce confirmed awards postconfirmation)
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 97 Conn. App. 541 (2006) (money judgment must specify amount or be ascertainable by computation)