DocketNumber: No. CV97 034 93 52S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12014
Judges: MOTTOLESE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/30/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Under the American rule, attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not awarded to successful parties unless there is a contractual or statutory exception. "The general rule that prevents a party from recovering attorney's fees does not apply, however, to situations in which the opposing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons. CFM of Connecticut, Inc.v. Chowdhury,
While the term "bad faith" can have varying meanings depending upon the context in which it is used, it has generally been defined as the CT Page 12016 conscious doing of a wrong because of a dishonest purpose, interested or sinister motive. Habetz v. Condon,
While a pro se litigant cannot be expected to adhere to the same high standards of performance of a practicing attorney he is required to comply with our Connecticut Rules of Practice. Basilicato v. Departmentof Public Utility Control,
At the time of the court's order of June 12, 2000 the court was uncertain of what precisely motivated Mr. Palumbo to employ the tactics that he did. The court is now persuaded that Mr. Palumbo was motivated by two considerations: 1) the desire to delay the proceeding in order to prolong his occupancy and use of the partitioned property; and, 2) to vindicate his numerous failed attempts to prove that the co-heirs of the property had committed fraud against him; and, 3) to satisfy his need for retribution against his siblings. The court deems these motives not only to have been improper but sinister as well. They are clearly minical to the furtherance of justice.
In view of Palumbo's various acts of procedural misconduct during the course of this proceeding the court finds that his acts were clearly without color and were taken in bad faith. CFM of Connecticut, Inc. vs.Chowdhury, supra at 394.
The plaintiffs attorney has filed an affidavit of attorney's fees which itemizes the services performed. The court notes that the affidavit seeks approval of an hourly rate of $250.00. While the ordinarily approvable hourly rate for the undersigned in this district has been $150.00, the higher rate sought is entirely justified by Mr. Palumbo's tactics in transforming this case from a conventional partition to a vehicle for harassment. The plaintiff is awarded an attorney's fee of $28,375.00.
The plaintiff has also requested that the court allocate this amount to Mr. Palumbo's share of the partition sale proceeds. The plaintiff has furnished no legal authority for such an allocation. The court will consider the issue upon presentation of a supplemental brief on the CT Page 12017 authority of the court to do so which brief shall be filed within two weeks.
MOTTOLESE, J.