Jacques v. Jacques
Citations
- 223 Conn. App. 501
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney's fees to the defendant, his former wife, in connection with a breach of contract action. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached their separation agreement by failing to disclose that she had liquidated two annuities prior to the commencement of the dissolution proceedings. The trial court, Hon. Gerard I. Adelman, judge trial referee, rendered judgment for the defendant, finding that the plain- tiff's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had breached the agreement, and that neither party had failed to disclose assets. The plaintiff appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal as moot. The defendant filed a motion for attorney's fees, seeking to recover the costs she had incurred in defending against the breach of contract action and the subsequent appeal. The trial court, Hon. Constance L. Epstein, judge trial referee, granted the motion, concluding that the defendant was entitled to recover attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the American rule, and awarded attorney's fees to the defendant. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the defendant attorney's fees: the trial court's memorandum of decision made clear that, in determining that the plain- tiff had acted in bad faith and did not have a colorable claim, the court relied exclusively on certain findings in Judge Adelman's memorandum of decision in the underlying breach of contract action rather than reviewing the record and making its own factual findings with the requi- site degree of specificity as to the relevant issues; moreover, Judge Adelman's decision did not include sufficiently specific factual findings to support an award of attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the American rule because it did not include any express fi
Judges: Bright; Clark; Prescott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-08-05· cited 189×
- CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. ChowdhurySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-12-03· cited 120×
- State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-10· cited 115×
- Paranteau v. DeVitaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-08-09· cited 58×
- Broadnax v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-07-13· cited 55×
- Maris v. McGrathSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-29· cited 38×
- Jacques v. JacquesConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-12-24· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.