Wosczyna v. Estate of Antone, No. Cv 93 0521515 (Jan. 30, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 210-B, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 671
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1997
DocketNos. CV 93 0521515, CV 93 0526844, CV 93 0526843
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 210-B (Wosczyna v. Estate of Antone, No. Cv 93 0521515 (Jan. 30, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wosczyna v. Estate of Antone, No. Cv 93 0521515 (Jan. 30, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 210-B, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 671 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The prevailing parties in these three consolidated cases CT Page 210-C request an award of attorney's fees.

Prior to his death, Donato D. Antone, Sr. executed a statutory short form power of attorney pursuant to General Statutes § 1-43 appointing the defendant, Norman Staphos, as his attorney-in-fact. Staphos, attempting to use his authority as such attorney-in-fact, gave away as gifts various assets of Antone, specifically, half the interest in commercial property on Farmington Avenue in Hartford to Staphos' sister, Linda Wosczyna; the ownership of an undeveloped lot in Becket, Massachusetts to Staphos' now wife, Albina Cardin; and cash from checking and savings accounts to himself and Wosczyna. The estate of Donato D. Antone, Sr. commenced an action to recover the above assets.

This court found that the statutory short form power of attorney was a contract of agency creating a principal-agent relationship between Antone and Staphos, and any gift made by Staphos as Antone's agent must be done within the framework of his fiduciary responsibilities. It further found that Staphos as Antone's agent was acting in his own self-interest or in the interest of others, and not on behalf of the principal, Antone, when he made the transfers in question. As a result, this court concluded that Staphos willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated his fiduciary responsibilities, and on September 26 1996 entered the following orders: CT Page 210-D

1. The defendant Albina Cardin is ordered to convey to the Estate of Donato D. Antone all right, title and interest she has in the real estate located in Becket, Massachusetts unencumbered by any mortgage. This must be done prior to November 15, 1996.

2. The Estate of Donato D. Antone is the rightful owner of the interest which Donato Antone held at the time of his death to the premises at 495 Farmington Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut and Linda Wosczyna is ordered to execute such deed as is necessary to transfer to the Estate any interest that appears on the land records to be hers in said real estate. This must be done prior to November 15, 1996.

3. Linda Wosczyna must pay to the Estate of Donato D. Antone the sum of $500 prior to November 15, 1996.

4. Norman Staphos must pay the sum of $8,937.44 to the Estate of Donato D. Antone prior to November 15, 1996.

5. The court will conduct a hearing on December 3, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 104 to determine if any further costs, damage or attorneys' fees should be awarded.

This decision follows the December 3, 1996 hearing. "The CT Page 210-E general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed [either as costs or damages] to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v.Beacon Industries, Inc., 239 Conn. 284, 311. "Apart from certain special exceptions, that rule obtains whether the action is legal or equitable in nature, whether the successful litigant is plaintiff or defendant, and even though the necessity of engaging in the litigation was caused by the wrongful act of the opposing party." Theodore D. Bross Line Constr. Corp. v. Ryan CraneService Corp., 32 Conn. Sup. 181, 182. "This rule is generally followed throughout the country. Connecticut adheres to the American rule." (Citation omitted.) 24 Leggett Street Ltd.Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc., supra, 311.

This rule, however, is not without exceptions. Attorney's fees may be awarded under the following circumstances in Connecticut.

1. Attorney's fees may be awarded "where a specific contractual term provides for the recovery of attorney's fees and costs." 24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v. Beacon Industries,Inc., supra, 239 Conn. 311; see, e.g., Storm Associates, Inc. v.Baumgold, 186 Conn. 237, 245-46; Litton Industries Credit Corp.CT Page 210-Fv. Catanuto, 175 Conn. 69. 76. ("A contract may provide for the payment of attorneys' fees by a defaulting party, but those fees are recoverable solely as a contract right and not as damages") (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Attorney's fees may be recovered pursuant to a statutory exception. 24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v. BeaconIndustries, Inc., supra, 239 Conn. 311; Fleming v. Garnett,231 Conn. 77, 94 (stating the court "must' respect the legislative prerogative of choosing the special circumstances under which [attorney's fees] awards may be made'; Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17,29; [the court] require[s] a clear expression of the legislature's intent to create a statutory exception"); O'Learyv. Industrial Park Corp., 211 Conn. 648, 651-52.

3. Attorney's fees may be awarded as a component of punitive damages to compensate a party for litigation expenses, less taxable costs. Triangle Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Silver,154 Conn. 116, 127; see O'Leary v. Industrial Park Corp., supra,211 Conn. 651; Markey v. Santangelo, 195 Conn. 76, 80. "To furnish a basis for recovery of such damages, the pleadings must allege and the evidence must show wanton or wilful malicious misconduct, and the language contained in the pleadings must be sufficiently explicit to inform the court and opposing counsel that such damages are being sought." Markey v. Santangelo, supra, 195 Conn. 77; CT Page 210-G see Manning v. Michael, 188 Conn. 607, 619; Lawson v. AetnaLife Insurance Company, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at New Britain, Docket No. 464989 (February 28, 1995, Handy, J.) (stating "[t]he complaint must contain allegations sufficient to inform the court and counsel that punitive damages are being sought"); Pucci v. The Rocky PointClub, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 138676 (March 23, 1995, D'Andrea, J.) (finding a complaint that only alleges claims for "[a]ny and all damages" and "[a]ny other further equitable and legal relief as the court may deem just and proper" does not support a claim for punitive damages).

4. The trial court may assess attorney's fees under its inherent power "where the opposing party has acted in bad faith." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fattibene v. Kealey, 18 Conn. App. 344,360; CRM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375. "It is generally accepted that the court has the inherent authority to assess attorney's fees when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Manning v. Michael
452 A.2d 1157 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Storm Associates, Inc. v. Baumgold
440 A.2d 306 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Triangle Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Silver
222 A.2d 220 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)
Santini v. Kocher
452 A.2d 318 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1982)
Theodore D. Bross Line Construction Corp. v. Ryan Crane Service Corp.
345 A.2d 594 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1975)
Litton Industries Credit Corp. v. Catanuto
394 A.2d 191 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1978)
Markey v. Santangelo
485 A.2d 1305 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Francis T. Zappone Co. v. Mark
497 A.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Doe v. Heintz
526 A.2d 1318 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1987)
O'Leary v. Industrial Park Corp.
560 A.2d 968 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Fleming v. Garnett
646 A.2d 1308 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc.
685 A.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury
685 A.2d 1108 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Fattibene v. Kealey
558 A.2d 677 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 210-B, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wosczyna-v-estate-of-antone-no-cv-93-0521515-jan-30-1997-connsuperct-1997.