contractual or statutory exception in Connecticut

2018Connecticut follows "[t]he general rule of law known as the American rule .... [Under this rule] attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation *1163 marks omitted.) Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso , supra, 240 Conn. at 72 , 689 A.2d 1097 .

2018Connecticut follows "[t]he general rule of law known as the American rule .... [Under this rule] attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation *1163 marks omitted.) Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso , supra, 240 Conn. at 72 , 689 A.2d 1097 .

2002"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. " Marsh, Day Calhoun v. Solomon , 204 Conn. 639 , 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

2002"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. " Marsh, Day Calhoun v. Solomon , 204 Conn. 639 , 652 , 529 A.2d 702 (1987).

2005“The common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267 Conn. 524, 532 , 839 A.2d 1250 (2004).

2005“The common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267 Conn. 524, 532 , 839 A.2d 1250 (2004).

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2000"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful litigant absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Roman v. Johnson , 48 Conn. App. 498 , 503 , 710 A.2d 186 (1998).

2000"The general rule of law known as the `American rule' is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful litigant absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Roman v. Johnson , 48 Conn. App. 498 , 503 , 710 A.2d 186 (1998).

2014Commissioner of Environ- mental Protection v. Mellon, [ 286 Conn. 687, 695 , 945 A.2d 464 (2008)].

2014Commissioner of Environ- mental Protection v. Mellon, [ 286 Conn. 687, 695 , 945 A.2d 464 (2008)].

2007Connecticut adheres to the “American rule,” which provides that “attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Truegreen Landcare, LLC v. Elm City Development & Construction Services, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 11, 14 , 919 A.2d 1077 (2007).

2007Connecticut adheres to the “American rule,” which provides that “attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Truegreen Landcare, LLC v. Elm City Development & Construction Services, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 11, 14 , 919 A.2d 1077 (2007).

2004“The common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Garnett, 231 Conn. 77, 93-94 , 646 A.2d 1308 (1994).

2004“The common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Garnett, 231 Conn. 77, 93-94 , 646 A.2d 1308 (1994).

2001Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc ., 239 Conn. 284 , 311 (1996).

1997Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc. , 239 Conn. 284 , 311 .

2021See, e.g., Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano, 203 Conn. App. 154, 171 , 247 A.3d 588 (2021); Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 Conn. App. 619, 640 , 195 A.3d 707 (2018). 4 We note that the plaintiff never challenged the propriety of asserting a counterclaim to obtain attorney’s fees through either a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

2021See, e.g., Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano, 203 Conn. App. 154, 171 , 247 A.3d 588 (2021); Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 Conn. App. 619, 640 , 195 A.3d 707 (2018). 4 We note that the plaintiff never challenged the propriety of asserting a counterclaim to obtain attorney’s fees through either a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

2021We, therefore, refer to Woodland Ridge, LLC, as the defendant. 2 ‘‘The general rule of law known as the American rule is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Hirsch, 170 Conn. App. 439 , 453 n.9, 154 A.3d 1009 (2017). 3 We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff’s contentions in its appellate brief that the court declined to award the defendant attorney’s fees on the basis that it was unjustly enriched, or that t

2021We, therefore, refer to Woodland Ridge, LLC, as the defendant. 2 ‘‘The general rule of law known as the American rule is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Hirsch, 170 Conn. App. 439 , 453 n.9, 154 A.3d 1009 (2017). 3 We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff’s contentions in its appellate brief that the court declined to award the defendant attorney’s fees on the basis that it was unjustly enriched, or that t

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2017Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Munro v. Munoz, 146 Conn. App. 853, 858 , 81 A.3d 252 (2013). ‘‘[T]he common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees an

2017Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Munro v. Munoz, 146 Conn. App. 853, 858 , 81 A.3d 252 (2013). ‘‘[T]he common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees an

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2017Co. , supra, 282 Conn. at 582 , 923 A.2d 697 ; see also, e.g., Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600 , 625, 95 A.3d 500 (2014) ; Fennelly v. Norton , 294 Conn. 484 , 504 n.17, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010) ; Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , supra, at 532-33, 839 A.2d 1250 ; Stratford v. Castater , 136 Conn.App. 535 , 544-45, 46 A.3d 953 (2012).

2017Pursuant to that rule, attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 759-60 , 159 A.3d 666 ; see also ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins.

2017Pursuant to that rule, attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 759-60 , 159 A.3d 666 ; see also ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins.

2017Co. v. Accurate Title Searches, Inc. , 173 Conn.App. 463 , 496, 164 A.3d 682 (2017). *448 "The general rule of law known as the American rule is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. ...

2017Co. v. Accurate Title Searches, Inc. , 173 Conn.App. 463 , 496, 164 A.3d 682 (2017). *448 "The general rule of law known as the American rule is that attorney's fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. ...

2014One limited exception to that rule in dissolution actions “provide [s] a trial court with the discretion to award *852 attorney’s fees to an innocent party who has incurred substantial attorney’s fees due to the egregious litigation misconduct of the other party when the trial court’s other financial orders have not adequately addressed that misconduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 658 , quoting Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 351 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007).

2014One limited exception to that rule in dissolution actions “provide [s] a trial court with the discretion to award *852 attorney’s fees to an innocent party who has incurred substantial attorney’s fees due to the egregious litigation misconduct of the other party when the trial court’s other financial orders have not adequately addressed that misconduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 658 , quoting Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 351 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007).

2014TES Fran- chising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 148 , 943 A.2d 406 (2008); see also Murphy v. Murphy, 180 Conn. 376, 380 , 429 A.2d 897 (1980).

2014TES Fran- chising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 148 , 943 A.2d 406 (2008); see also Murphy v. Murphy, 180 Conn. 376, 380 , 429 A.2d 897 (1980).

2012In the present case, § 31-72 provides the statutory predicate for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs; it is well established, however, that it is appropriate for a plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees, and double damages under that statute, only when the trial court has found that the defendant acted with bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 268-69 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003).

2012In the present case, § 31-72 provides the statutory predicate for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs; it is well established, however, that it is appropriate for a plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees, and double damages under that statute, only when the trial court has found that the defendant acted with bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 268-69 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003).

2012(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 301 Conn. 323, 338 , 21 A.3d 737 (2011). “[T]he common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. . . .

2012(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 301 Conn. 323, 338 , 21 A.3d 737 (2011). “[T]he common law rule in Connecticut, also known as the American Rule, is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. . . .

2012Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Noel v. Ribbits, LLC, 132 Conn. App. 531, 534-35 , 35 A.3d 1078 (2011). *622 “Connecticut follows the American rule, a general principle under which attorney’s fees and ordinary expen

2012Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Noel v. Ribbits, LLC, 132 Conn. App. 531, 534-35 , 35 A.3d 1078 (2011). *622 “Connecticut follows the American rule, a general principle under which attorney’s fees and ordinary expen