Advance Release Opinions – December 1

The Supreme Court advance released an opinion in a criminal case that I review below. The Appellate Court advance released opinions about civil procedure, family law, indemnification, and vexatious litigation that I review below. The Appellate Court also released three opinions in criminal matters which I do not review.

Connecticut Supreme Court

Criminal Law

State v. Damato-Kushel – I don’t normally review opinions in criminal cases but this one is a little different. The defendant was accused of sexual misconduct. Her alleged victim brought this writ of error, claiming that he, either personally or through his attorney, had a constitutional right under the victim’s rights amendment to be present during plea negotiations and other in-chambers pretrial disposition conferences between the prosecutor, the court and defense counsel. Supreme Court dismissed the writ, concluding that the alleged victim has no right to attend because the defendant herself has no right to attend. A concurring opinion notes that even though the defendant has no right to attend, her attorney does and the majority did not explain why the same right is not extended to the alleged victim’s counsel. The reason is that the language of the victim’s rights amendment does not allow it.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Civil Procedure

Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Cotrone – This case confirms, if we didn’t already know it, that failure to follow proper procedure can really ruin your day. Law firm sued former client for unpaid legal fees. Former client counterclaimed. Law firm filed a withdrawal of its action. Two days later, law firm filed what it thought was a withdrawal of its withdrawal. Trial court rejected former client’s argument that you can’t withdraw a withdrawal. Case went to trial. Law firm won on its claim and the counterclaim. Appellate Court reversed the judgment on law firm’s claim because you can’t withdraw a withdrawal. You have to move to restore the case to the docket within four months of the withdrawal. Painful lesson.

Family Law

Kent v. DiPaola –  Trial court did not include the present value of Spouse 2’s pensions (which were in pay status) in the division of assets because it used the income stream from the pensions to eliminate what would have been Spouse 1’s child support obligation. Trial court divided the martial assets two-thirds / one-third in favor of Spouse 2. Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the pensions from the marital asserts because the income offset Spouse 1’s support obligation. Nor was there any abuse of discretion in the property division.

Indemnification

O’Brien v. New Haven – Plaintiff was the city’s tax collector. A third party sued plaintiff for misconduct. Plaintiff asked city to defend him. City declined but said that it would indemnify plaintiff under CGS § 7-101a(b) for financial loss, including attorney’s fees, if plaintiff won the case and was acting in the discharge of his duties. Plaintiff hired his own lawyer and won. City refused to pay his attorney’s fees. Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to bring an action for indemnification with the city clerk and commenced the action soon after. City claimed that notice was late. Trial court found that notice was proper and timely; plaintiff was entitled to his attorney’s fees in defending against the misconduct claims; but plaintiff was not entitled to his attorney’s fees in prosecuting the indemnification action. Plaintiff and city appealed. After some extensive statutory analysis, Appellate Court agreed that the notice was proper and timely. Appellate Court also agreed that plaintiff was not entitled to his attorney’s fees in the indemnification action because there was no statute or contract authorizing it.

Vexatious Litigation

Rockwell v. Rockwell – In the underlying action, wife sued husband on an investment agreement and lost. Husband then sued wife and wife’s attorney for vexatious litigation. Wife was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Husband claimed a jury. After bifurcating the issue since it involved a question of law, the trial court found that there was probable cause to commence the underlying action and entered judgment for attorney. Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that trial court did not abuse discretion in bifurcating the probable cause issue; husband did not have a constitutional right to have the jury decide that issue; and trial court properly determined there was probable cause for the underlying action.