Watson Real Estate, LLC v. Woodland Ridge, LLC
Citations
- 208 Conn. App. 115
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for, inter alia, breach of contract. The parties entered into an escrow agreement in conjunction with the purchase of a lot in a residential subdivision owned by the defendant W Co. The escrow agreement provided that, in the event of a dispute, all costs of litigation, including attorney's fees, shall be paid to the prevailing party. During trial, the parties agreed that the issue of attorney's fees should be reserved until after a decision on the merits of the complaint had been rendered. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of W Co., from which the plaintiff appealed to this court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. While that appeal was pending, the trial court denied W Co.'s motion for attorney's fees. Follow- ing this court's release of its decision on the plaintiff's appeal, W Co. moved for judgment on its pending counterclaim seeking attorney's fees. The court denied W Co.'s motion for judgment and its motion for reargument and reconsideration, and W Co. appealed to this court. Held that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion with respect to W Co.'s claim for attorney's fees: the trial court summarily denied W Co.'s motion for attorney's fees and its motion for judgment on its counter- claim without explanation; in the court's subsequent articulation, it explained that it denied the motion for judgment because it had denied the motion for attorney's fees nearly two years earlier and W Co. had not filed an appeal, and the court's circular explanation for its denials of W Co.'s motions demonstrated that it failed to exercise its discretion; moreover, the parties' contract provided for attorney's fees for the pre- vailing party, and the court had a duty to exercise its discretion to determine whether W Co. had proven its claim for attorney's fees and whether those fees were reasonable, and, at no point, did the court indicate that it had considered the merits of the defendant's
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though the order of protection expired prior to the case being submitted to this Court on appeal
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cradle; Alexander; DiPentima
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.