Budlong & Budlong, LLC v. Zakko
| Decision Date | 19 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 44374 |
| Citation | 213 Conn.App. 697,278 A.3d 1122 |
| Parties | BUDLONG & BUDLONG, LLC v. Angham ZAKKO |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Catherine M. Spain, for the appellant (defendant).
Joseph R. Brennan-Reilly, with whom, on the brief, was C. Michael Budlong, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Cradle, Clark and Bishop, Js.
The defendant, Angham Zakko,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a hearing and report by an attorney fact finder, in favor of the plaintiff, Budlong & Budlong, LLC, on the plaintiff's complaint in the amount of $17,602.50. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) overruled her objection to the attorney fact finder's report because the court failed to review the evidence considered by the attorney fact finder, and (2) rendered judgment in accordance with the attorney fact finder's report because the report contained insufficient factual
findings. We agree with both of the defendant's claims and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of this appeal. On April 24, 2018, the plaintiff, a law firm, commenced this action seeking to collect unpaid fees for legal services it provided to its former client, the defendant. The plaintiff's three count complaint generally alleges that the defendant retained the plaintiff to represent her in a postjudgment dissolution proceeding. The complaint alleges that the parties executed a retainer agreement on December 2, 2016, and that the plaintiff provided the defendant with legal representation through approximately May 20, 2017. The complaint alleges that the defendant owes the plaintiff an unpaid balance of $17,201.04 for services rendered by the plaintiff. The counts in the complaint against the defendant assert breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and account stated. On May 18, 2018, the (then) self-represented defendant filed a form answer accompanied by a narrative "[e]xplanation and answers," in which she explains the history of the parties’ relationship and alleges that the plaintiff overcharged her for the work it performed.
On August 22, 2019, the court, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-53,2 issued an order referring the matter to an attorney fact finder.3 On December 9, 2020, the parties participated in a hearing before an attorney fact finder.4 At the hearing, the attorney for the plaintiff stated that "there were two exhibits that were stipulated to, one is the retainer agreement, and the other is just a bill for services ...." The attorney fact finder marked the retainer agreement as exhibit 1, and the bill for services as exhibit 2. The plaintiff then elicited testimony from the defendant regarding the parties’ relationship and the purposes for her retention of the plaintiff. The defendant testified that she hired a private investigator who discovered that the defendant's ex-husband, Laith Kasir, had hidden $74,000 in assets during their marital dissolution proceedings. She testified that she retained the plaintiff to obtain her portion of those hidden assets, and that she signed the retainer agreement marked as exhibit 1. The defendant also testified that she later entered into a postjudgment stipulation with respect to the hidden assets, which provided that she would receive the entire $74,000 of the hidden assets. The defendant finally testified that she received the bill for services provided by the plaintiff marked as exhibit 2; although she paid the plaintiff $13,000, it had been her "understanding ... that ten thousand should take" her through the collection of her ex-husband's assets; and she has refused to pay the full amount claimed by the plaintiff "[b]ecause the bills are unrealistic."
The hearing before the attorney fact finder continued by way of the defendant's testimony in a narrative manner. The defendant testified that, following her divorce and before she retained the plaintiff, she had hired
an investigator to discover assets she believed her ex-husband had hidden from her during the dissolution proceedings and, through that investigator, she had learned that her ex-husband had a retirement account with an approximate balance of $74,000. She stated that she confronted her "ex-husband's attorney, and they wanted to divide that asset." The defendant explained that she paid the plaintiff $10,000 "really to get [her] case resolved and get [her] rightful share" of her ex-husband's hidden assets as she believed there were more assets than the $74,000 her investigator had discovered. She testified that she had retained the plaintiff to discover other assets she believed her ex-husband had hidden but, instead, she was convinced by the plaintiff to settle for receiving the entire proceeds from the discovered account in lieu of conducting discovery to uncover further assets. She testified that Attorney Michael Budlong, an attorney employed by the plaintiff, overbilled her for meetings with her and was residing in Florida during the relevant time period. She further testified that the plaintiff improperly asked for $3000 in addition to the $10,000 she initially provided to resolve the case, that the stipulation she entered into to resolve the $74,000 in hidden assets failed to account for additional stocks her ex-husband possessed, and, thus, she later had to retain new counsel to obtain those additional hidden assets. The defendant also testified that the total amount charged by the plaintiff was approximately $33,000, of which she paid $13,000. She claimed that the $33,000 total charged by the plaintiff was disproportionate to the $35,0005 of her ex-husband's assets that she actually received, taking into
account the $4000 she independently paid to her investigator.6
On January 14, 2020, the attorney fact finder filed with the court a brief written report (report) finding in favor of the plaintiff. The entire report provides:
On January 24, 2020, the defendant, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-57,7 filed an objection to the attorney fact finder's report, raising eight claims of error, and she attached eight documents to her filing.8 In her objection, the defendant argued: (1) the report was "not properly reached due to lack of evidence" because the attorney fact finder improperly excluded her proffered exhibits; (2) the report lacked evidence because the bill submitted by the plaintiff was fabricated as it included charges for motions that were filed prior to the plaintiff's retention; (3) the parties agreed that $10,000 was "sufficient to do the work"; (4) the plaintiff exhausted the $10,000 payment within the first eight days after its retention without completing any discovery, asset location, depositions, or a trial within those eight days; (5) Attorney Budlong was in Florida and the plaintiff neglected her case; (6) the attorney fact finder's finding that the " ‘representation was successful’ " was erroneous because she had to pay another attorney to obtain the full amount of her ex-husband's assets; (7) she retained the plaintiff to obtain her ex-husband's "$72,000" in hidden assets, but that she received a payment of only "$32,500"; and (8) the plaintiff improperly charged the defendant for the work she performed herself, including the investigation and location of the hidden assets. The defendant concluded her objection by stating that these eight grounds show that the report's statements, conclusions, and factual findings were not properly reached. The plaintiff did not file a written response to the defendant's objection.
On October 1, 2020, the court, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-58,9 held a hearing on the defendant's objection. At the hearing, both parties initially presented argument as to the scope of the court's review of the report, the basis for the $2500 reduction in fees, and the several grammatical ambiguities in the report as to the amount of the judgment. The court preliminarily stated that it did not "have any basis to make a ruling on whether or not the [attorney] fact finder properly excluded evidence or not," and that it did not "have a basis for understanding why [the decision to credit the defendant $2500] was made." The court, citing Banks Building Co., LLC v. Malanga Family Real Estate Holding, LLC , 92 Conn. App. 394, 399, 885 A.2d 204 (2005) ( Banks ), also stated that The court further stated that it is "obligated to look at the entire record" and that it did not "have a record of what was said at the event itself, and I think I really need to look at that to
figure out whether or not there was an evidentiary basis for the $2500 or if there was a basis for excluding evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atl. St. Heritage Assocs., LLC v. Atl. Realty Co.
...it is sufficiently likely to arise on remand, we will also address the defendants’ second claim. See Budlong & Budlong, LLC v. Zakko , 213 Conn. App. 697, 714 n.14, 278 A.3d 1122 (2022) ("[a]lthough our resolution of the defendant's first claim is dispositive of this appeal, we also address......
-
Prioleau v. Agosta
... ... policy of leniency to self-represented litigants"; ... Budlong & Budlong, LLC v. Zakko, 213 Conn.App ... 697, 712 n.13, 278 A.3d 1122 (2022); we construe ... ...