Opinion
No. 040488839 S
July 28, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE POSTJUDGMENT MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND POSTJUDGMENT MOTION FOR INTEREST
In April of 2004 the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit concerning the ownership, conversion and security interests in certain restaurant equipment. The complaint included several counts or causes of action addressed to the defendants Scott Wiseman and Seawind LLC. There were additional counts addressed to the defendants Robert D. Hartmann, Sr., Robert D. Hartmann, Jr., Jason R. Hartmann, Jason Roberts Concrete LLC (hereinafter J.R.C., LLC) and Jason Roberts, Inc. (hereinafter J.R., Inc.). The counts against the Hartmann defendants related to their claim of a security interest in the same restaurant equipment as the plaintiffs claimed. The plaintiffs asserted claims against the Hartmann defendants alleging a fraudulent transfer of equipment in violation of CUTPA conversion, tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual relations and unjust enrichment. Further, the plaintiffs sought to pierce the veil of the Hartmann corporations.
The court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs on May 3, 2007. The court found that the defendants Hartmann, Sr., Hartmann, Jr., and Jason R. Hartmann acted dishonestly and with intentional disregard to the rights of the plaintiffs, and, therefore, an award of common-law punitive damages was appropriate. In its memorandum of decision, Tzovolos v. Wiseman, 51 Conn.Sup. 532, 589 (2007), the court held "that the plaintiffs have established their entitlement to recovery under several theories of liability. The damages under each theory involve the conversion of the items of kitchen equipment in which they held a security interest. This equipment had a value of $12,700. Further, the plaintiffs have established that Hartmann, Sr., Jason R. Hartmann and Hartmann, Jr. exercised dominion and control over the businesses of Seawind, J.R., Inc., and J.R.C., LLC. The individual defendants Hartmann, Sr., Hartmann, Jr. and Jason R. Hartmann acted individually and through their agents or servants in carrying out the events complained of in this complaint.
Although the court has determined the appropriate damages under each theory of liability, the total judgment against Hartmann, Sr., Jason R. Hartmann, Hartmann, Jr., Seawind, J.R., Inc. and J.R.C., LLC to the plaintiffs is jointly and severally $12,700 plus statutory interest from April 26, 2004.
The court has also determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages at common law and a statutory award of attorneys fees as to the CUTPA count against Hartmann, Sr., Jason R. Hartmann, Hartmann, Jr., J.R.C., LLC and J.R., Inc. in the amount of $39,640." Judgment, thus entered in the amount of $59,623.72. The named defendant, Scott Wiseman had filed for bankruptcy during the pendency of the action.
Subsequent to the rendering of the trial court's decision, appeals were perfected to the Supreme Court of Connecticut by the Hartmann defendants. The Supreme Court, per curiam, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Tzovolos v. Wiseman, 300 Conn. 247 (2011). The plaintiffs now seek an additional award of attorneys fees covering their attorneys fees during the appeals process and they further seek a further award of postjudgment interest to cover the period from May 3, 2007 through the date of this memorandum.
A.
The court will first turn to the plaintiffs' request for award of attorneys fees in addition to those awarded in the underlying action. In support of this claim, the plaintiff submitted two attorney/client fee agreements. The first fee agreement is dated May 27, 2007, and set an hourly rate of $250. The second agreement, dated December 27, 2007, raised the agreed upon hourly rate to $275 and further provided that any services by the attorney's assistants would be billed at $90 an hour.
In addition to the agreement, the plaintiff submitted his attorney's billing statements to which totaled $78,029 and costs in the amount of $4,819.52. Both parties referenced a memorandum from Legal Services Unit of the Appellate Special Public Defenders. This memorandum dated July 21, 2010 articulated standards to guide the special public defenders with regard to the carrying out of various Appellate Court tasks. It noted that the guidelines were "only that and are flexible up and down depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
The defendants challenge the reasonableness of the number of hours charged by the plaintiffs' attorney. They further suggest that the case did not contain any novel legal issues and, in essence, asked the court to exercise its discretion in entering an award for additional legal fees in this matter.
The court disagrees with the defendants that this was a relatively simple commercial dispute. In fact, this was a relatively complicated commercial dispute involving security interests and the conversion of certain secured property. The trial court's memorandum of decision details the complicated dealings between numerous parties and entities that effected in one way or another the security interests in the restaurant equipment. Numerous theories of liability and defenses were put forward by the parties. The court has considered the complexity of the issues raised on this appeal and makes the following findings.
It finds that a fair and reasonable hourly fee for the plaintiffs' attorney should be in the amount of $250 per hour for the work on this appeal. The court further finds that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs' attorney to spend 195 hours of work in defending this appeal and, therefore, it is appropriate, reasonable and fair to award supplemental postjudgment attorneys fees for the appeal in the amount of $48,750. Further, the costs of $4,819 are deemed appropriate and reasonable by the court. These sums total $53,569.
B.
The second issue raised by the plaintiff is the appropriate award of postjudgment interest from the May 3, 2007 judgment to the date of this memorandum. The court is of the opinion that an award of postjudgment interest for this appeal period should enter, but it should enter at a rate less than the maximum allowable rate of 10 percent per annum. The court believes that an interest rate of 5 percent per annum on the underlying judgment of $59,623.72 is appropriate. Therefore, the court awards postjudgment interest in the amount of $12,454.68 through the date of July 25, 2011. That interest shall accrue thereafter at the rate of $8.28 per diem.
C.
In summary, therefore, the initial judgment is in the amount of $59,623.72. The court awards additional attorneys fees for appellate work in the amount of $48,750, awards additional costs in the amount of $4,819 and awards postjudgment interest in the amount of $12,454.68 for a total judgment of $125,647.40.