Sclafani Props., LLC v. Sport-N-Life Distrib., LLC

233 A.3d 1285

SCLAFANI PROPERTIES, LLC

v.SPORT-N-LIFE DISTRIBUTING, LLC, ET AL.

AC 40066

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 9, 2020

Officially released June 23, 2020

Peter V. Lathouris, Stamford, with whom were Victor Andreou and, on the brief, Michael P. Longo, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).

Mario L. DeMarco, for the appellees (defendants).

Prescott, Bright and Bishop, Js.

BISHOP, J.

The plaintiff, Sclafani Properties, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding it damages and attorney's fees for the failure of the defendants, Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (lessee), and its president, Gilbert Beck (guarantor),¹ to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under a commercial lease for property located at 482 Glenbrook Road in Stamford (property). The plaintiff claims that the court (1) erred when it failed to include in its judgment for the plaintiff an amount for unpaid real estate taxes and (2) abused its discretion in awarding only $6391.63 in attorney's fees. We reverse in part the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court.

The record reflects the following undisputed facts and procedural history. On December 12, 2003, the plaintiff, as the landlord, and the defendants, as the tenant and guarantor respectively, entered into a written commercial lease (lease) for the property. The lease was modified by agreement on January 20, 2012, and the rent was set to $8500 per month beginning February 1, 2012. The lease also required the defendants to pay all real estate taxes and to keep the property properly insured.

During the term of the lease, as modified, the lessee defaulted on its obligations under the lease. Thereafter, on September 9, 2013, the plaintiff brought a complaint² against the lessee and the guarantor alleging, among other things, that the lessee had breached the lease by failing to make payments as required by the lease. The plaintiff sought payment of those amounts and reasonable attorney's fees as provided for in the lease. The plaintiff also sought a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $75,000. Its application for a prejudgment remedy was supported by the affidavit of Bruce Sclafani, the plaintiff's managing member. Sclafani averred that the defendants owed $17,000 for the unpaid July and August rent, $33,934.33 in unpaid real estate taxes, and $2266 in unpaid insurance premiums. Subsequently, the court granted a stipulated prejudgment remedy in the amount of $75,000. Once the pleadings were closed, the matter was referred by the trial court to an attorney trial referee for a hearing and report pursuant to the provisions of Practice Book § 19-2a. Thereafter, the attorney trial referee conducted an evidentiary hearing during which testimony was taken and documents were admitted into evidence. On February 26, 2016, the attorney trial referee filed her report pursuant to Practice Book § 19-8.

In her report, the attorney trial referee noted that the plaintiff had offered testimony that the defendants had failed to pay rent from August, 2013, through February, 2014, that the defendants had failed to pay the real estate taxes due in July, 2012, and January and July, 2013, in the amount of $33,934.33, and had failed to pay hazard insurance premiums in the amount of $2266. She noted, as well, that the plaintiff had testified that the defendants had caused damage to the property in the amount of $30,785.74. The defendants disputed that they had caused any damage to the property, but did not dispute the plaintiff's evidence of the unpaid taxes. Having acknowledged the plaintiff's testimony that the defendants failed to pay the real estate taxes amounting to $33,934.33 and hazard insurance premiums in the stated amount, the attorney trial referee nevertheless concluded in her report that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence regarding either the real estate taxes or insurance premiums.

The attorney trial referee recommended judgment enter for the plaintiff in the form of $51,000 for rent, less the security deposit of $15,000; $5535.74 for damages to the property; interest in the amount of $543.90; and taxable costs of the action; and she recommended that the court issue an award of attorney's fees in favor of the plaintiff.

Following the issuance of the report, the plaintiff filed an objection to the report and the entry of judgment in accordance with the attorney trial referee's recommendations. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the attorney trial referee erroneously had concluded that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence of the defendants’ failure to pay real estate taxes or hazard insurance premiums as the transcript of the hearing, as well as documentary evidence submitted during the hearing, provided evidence contrary to the report. On July 28, 2016, the court denied the objection. The court rendered "[j]udgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $41,535.74 in damages³ and $543.90 in interests and costs in the amount of $531.25, for a total of $42,610.89." Notably, the judgment included no provisions for real estate taxes or insurance payments.

On August 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21 in the amount of $26,604.12.⁴ With its motion, the plaintiff attached an affidavit and supporting invoices detailing the hours expended and the hourly rates charged for legal services. At the hearing on the plaintiff's motion, the plaintiff argued that the fees associated with this case were reasonable under the circumstances. In response, the defendants declined the opportunity to examine counsel as to the reasonableness of his hourly rate or the hours expended. In asking the court to order a reasonable amount of attorney's fees, the defendants’ counsel claimed, without any supporting evidence, that the plaintiff had been overly litigious. The defendants’ counsel asked the court to issue an order for fees commensurate with the underlying relief sought by the plaintiff and he sought the sympathy of the court.

On November 14, 2016, the court, Rodriguez, J. , granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $6391.63. The plaintiff moved for articulation with regard to the court's decision with regard to attorney's fees on November 21, 2016, which the court denied. This appeal followed and, thereafter, the plaintiff moved for articulation with regard to both the court's July 28, 2016 judgment and its November 14, 2016 decision as to attorney's fees. The court again denied the plaintiff's motion for articulation but this court ordered the court to provide such an articulation.⁵ Additional facts will be set forth as necessary. At issue are whether the court abused its discretion in failing to make an award for unpaid real estate taxes and whether the court's award of attorney's fees was reasonable. We review each claim in turn.

I

The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff without awarding any damages related to the defendants’ failure to pay the real estate taxes as required by the lease. More specifically, the plaintiff argues that the defendants made judicial admissions as to their liability for the taxes and, moreover, that the attorney trial referee's finding that there was no evidence of the defendants’ failure to pay the taxes was clearly erroneous in light of the undisputed evidence of the defendants’ liability and their failure to pay. We agree with the plaintiff's second argument.⁶

We begin with the relevant legal principles that guide our analysis of this claim. "It is axiomatic that [a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court ... the Appellate Court ... or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of ... attorney trial referees. ... This court has articulated that attorney trial referees and [fact finders] share the same function ... whose determination of the facts is reviewable in accordance with well established procedures prior to the rendition of judgment by the court. ...

"The factual findings of a [trial referee] on any issue are reversible only if they are clearly erroneous. ... [A reviewing court] cannot retry the facts or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gould v. Hall , 64 Conn. App. 45, 49–50, 779 A.2d 208 (2001).

Furthermore, "it is the function of this court to determine whether the decision of the trial court is clearly erroneous. ... This involves a two part function: where the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court's decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous. ...

"[Additionally], we note that, because the attorney [fact finder] does not have the powers of a court and is simply a fact finder, [a]ny legal conclusions reached by an attorney [fact finder] have no conclusive effect. ... The reviewing court is the effective arbiter of the law and the legal opinions of [an attorney fact finder], like those of the parties, though they may be helpful, carry no weight not justified by their soundness as viewed by the court that renders judgment." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning , 126 Conn. App. 94, 99, 11 A.3d 165 (2011), aff'd, 307 Conn. 582, 57 A.3d...