(Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn.App. 399, 408, 835 A.2d 117 (2003). This court ordered supplemental briefing on the following issues: “Did the committee's motion for fees/expenses filed on May 13, 2008, and/or the court's granting of the motion on May 27, 2008, violate the automatic bankruptcy stay, and, if so, were such actions void? [and] Even if the actions were void, did the parties have the ability to address the issue of committee fees and expenses subsequent to the stay such that any error was harmless?

The mortgage deed entered into by OFA and the Debtor, provides for the Debtor's payment of reasonable costs and expenses arising in connection with a foreclosure proceeding. The fact that OFA has not yet filed a written bill of costs with the state court as required by Connecticut court rules (see City of Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 407-409 (2003)), is irrelevant because the applicability of §506(b) is intended to be determined by federal law only. See In re K. H. Stephenson, 768 F.2d 580, 585 (4th Cir. 1985).

Marlin Broadcasting, LLC v. Law Office of Kent Avery, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 638, 652, 922 A.2d 1131 (2007). Although the legal analysis of the court would be unnecessary if the issues in the appeal were questions of law; see Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n. 10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003); we reiterate that the proper standard of appellate review in this case depends on whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Cox v. Burdick, supra, 98 Conn. App. 176-77.

We nevertheless consider Devino's claim on appeal. When we are considering "purely a question of law warranting plenary review, the legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to this court's consideration of the issue on appeal." Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n. 10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003). In its memorandum of decision, when addressing Devino's other statute of limitations defense, the court found that Devino admitted that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on August 22, 1997.

See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250, 254 n. 5, 826 A.2d 232, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909, 832 A.2d 74 (2003). Additionally, when we determine that any of the issues raised on appeal present purely questions of law warranting plenary review, the issues may be reviewed despite the absence of a memorandum of decision or signed transcript because the legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to this court's consideration of the issues on appeal. See, e.g., Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n. 10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003). Because we conclude that the transcript adequately reveals the basis of the court's decision, we will review the claims of error raised by the defendant.

Because that transcript contains "a sufficiently detailed and concise statement of the trial court's findings," we find that the record is adequate for our review. Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn. App. 688, 691 n. 1, 751 A.2d 394 (2000); see also Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n. 10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003) (determining that record adequate for review when claim on appeal raises pure question of law). Practice Book § 17-45 provides in relevant part: "A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by such documents as may be appropriate, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and the like. . . . Any adverse party shall at least five days before the date the motion is to be considered on the short calendar file opposing affidavits and other available documentary evidence.

See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Ass'n., 78 Conn. App. 250, 254 n.5, 826 A.2d 232, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909, 832 A.2d 74 (2003).We also note that with respect to any issues raised in this appeal that present purely questions of law warranting plenary review, we may review them despite the absence of a memorandum of decision or a signed transcript because the legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to this court's consideration of the issues on appeal. See, e.g., Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n.10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003), citing Niehaus v. Cowles Business Media, Inc., 263 Conn. 178, 184, 819 A.2d 765 (2003). "Issues of statutory construction present questions of law, over which we exercise plenary review. . . . When construing a statute, we first look to its text, as directed by Public Acts 2003, No. 03-154, § 1 (P.A. 03-154) [now General Statutes § 1-2z], which provides: 'The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes.

In fact, the petitioner certified that no transcript was necessary for the resolution of his appeal. Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is purely a question of law; Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 10, 13, 847 A.2d 1080, cert. granted on other grounds, 270 Conn. 910, 853 A.2d 526 (2004); and a habeas court's legal analysis is not essential to appellate review of questions of law to which the plenary standard of review applies. See Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n. 10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003). The question of whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition for a writ of habeas corpus turns on whether the petitioner's sentence for murder as an accessory was imposed consecutive to or concurrent with his larceny sentences.

Because the defendant has failed to provide an adequate record for review; see Practice Book § 61-10; by failing to file a motion for articulation or by providing this court with a signed transcript of the court's oral decision, we will review only the defendant's claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that being purely a question of law warranting plenary review. See Norwalk v. Farrell, 80 Conn. App. 399, 406 n.10, 835 A.2d 117 (2003). Practice Book § 61-10 provides in relevant part: "It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 18-5(a), the proper mechanism for a prevailing party to request costs is by filing a written bill of costs. See City of Norwalk v. Farrell, Jr., 80 Conn.App. 399, 409, 835 A.2d 117 (2003) (Court held that costs could be taxed against the non-prevailing party only after the filing of a written bill of costs pursuant to § 18-5.) " It is elementary that, whether fees and costs are a matter of right or discretion, they ordinarily are awarded to the party that prevails in the case and, until there is a prevailing party, they do not arise . . ." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)