ACKIEFI v. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD, No. CV01-4005253S (Apr. 21, 2009)


JOHN ACKIEFI ET AL. v. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD ET AL.

2009 Ct. Sup. 7464
No. CV01-4005253SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
April 21, 2009

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COSTS
UPSON, J.

This is a post-trial objection by the plaintiff to the defendant’s filing of a bill of costs after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.

After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the plaintiff proved that an enforceable contract existed between the parties, but the plaintiffs did not prove that they performed their obligations under the contract. Thus, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant August 20, 2008. Judgment was entered for the defendant on the same day.

In response to this verdict, the defendant filed a motion for special finding that this action was without merit and was not brought in good faith on August 26, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the defendant filed its bill of costs. On February 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed his objection and opposition to the defendant’s motion for costs. This objection was filed over five months from the date the defendant filed its bill of costs. The defendant filed a response to this objection on February 20, 2009.

This case presents two separate legal issues. First, whether the defendant properly filed and is entitled to the amount stated in its bill of costs. Second, whether the defendant is entitled to a special finding that this action was without merit and was not brought in good faith.

As to the first issue of the bill of costs, the defendant argues it properly filed its bill of costs under Practice Book § 18-5, the plaintiffs failed to object in a timely manner as proscribed by statute and the clerk of the court, therefore, cannot consider their objections when taxing costs in this matter. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant is not entitled to costs, absent a finding that the action was brought in CT Page 7465 bad faith under General Statutes § 52-226a.

Practice nook § 18-5 provides in relevant part “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, costs may be taxed by the clerk in civil cases fourteen days after the filing of a written bill of costs provided that no objection is filed. If a written objection is filed within the fourteen-day period, notice shall be given by the clerk to all appearing parties of record of the date and time of the clerk’s taxation. The parties may appear at such taxation and have the right to be heard by the clerk.”

In the present case, the defendant filed a written bill of costs twenty-two days after the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. “`[T]here [is] no time limit placed upon the filing of a bill of costs. Practice Book [§ 18-5] sets forth the procedure by which a party may obtain costs; however, there was no mention of timeliness with which the party must act . . . There must be some guideline to follow, and it appears that the guideline is a reasonable time after the verdict or the completion of all proceedings. Such a decision can be made by the court on an ad hoc basis.’ Wakeman v. Oral Maxillotacial Surgeons, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Docket No. 89 022415 (November 27, 1992, McGrath, J.) (7 Conn. L. Rptr. 539) . . . The Appellate Court has held that a prevailing party has a reasonable time after the entering of the final judgment to file a motion for attorneys fees and costs under [General Statutes] § 4-184a and that it is within the trial court’s discretion whether such motion was filed within a reasonable time.[1] See Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 38 Conn.App. 506, 662 A.2d 137 (1995), aff’d, 237 Conn. 28, 675 A.2d 851 (1996) (five months was a reasonable time).” Hawks v. Reznik, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV 94 0119515 (January 11, 1999, Gill, J.) (23 Conn. L. Rptr. 673).

In the present case, the defendant timely filed its bill of costs with the clerk of the court twenty-two days after the completion of all proceedings. Twenty-two days is more than a reasonable time frame for filing, considering that the Appellate Court has upheld five months as a reasonable time. Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, supra, 38 Conn.App. 506. In the present case, the court will consider the defendant’s bill of costs properly and timely filed.

Under Practice Book § 18-5(a), however, the losing party of the litigation must file an objection to the bill of costs within fourteen days of the filing of a written bill of costs. See also Shepherd v. Mitchell, 96 Conn.App. 716, 731, 901 A.2d 1230 (2006) (Appellate Court will not consider appeal where no timely objection to bill of costs, CT Page 7466 request for additional time, or request for permission to file a late objection was filed).

In the present case, the winning defendant filed a bill of costs with the clerk of the court and certified that he sent a copy to all parties. Thus, the losing party to the litigation, the plaintiff, was put on notice by the defendant of its bill of costs as early as September 11, 2008. The plaintiff failed to object to the bill of costs for over five months after the written bill of costs was filed by the defendant. This objection was not timely as required by Practice Book § 18-5 and will not be considered by the court. Even if the court were to consider the objection by the plaintiff, the objection was not relevant nor applicable to the issue of the validity of the bill of costs and would not change the decision of the court.

The court orders the clerk of the court to issue a notice of taxation of costs against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant to all parties.[2]

The second issue is whether the defendant is entitled to a special finding that the cause of action brought by the plaintiff was without merit and was not brought in good faith. General Statutes § 52-226a.[3]
Having presided over the entire jury trial and having reviewed the appropriate pleadings, the court finds that there is not “clear evidence that the challenged actions are entirely without color and [are taken] for reasons of harassment or delay or for other improper purposes.”Beverly v. State, 44 Conn.App. 641, 648-49, 691 A.2d 1093 (1997). The defendant’s motion for special finding that the action was without merit and was not brought in good faith is denied.

CONCLUSION
The plaintiffs’ objection to the defendant’s bill of costs is overruled and the defendant’s bill of costs is taxed. The court orders the clerk of the court to issue a notice of taxation of costs against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant to all parties. The defendant’s motion for special finding that the action was without merit and was not brought in good faith is denied.

[1] The Court continued in a footnote, “Although these cases discuss the award of attorneys fees and costs under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-184a instead of § 52-257, these two statute sections are comparable for purposes of determining when motions for such costs should be filed because both are for postjudgment costs and neither states a time limit for the filing of such motions.” Hawks v. Reznik, supra, 23 Conn. L. CT Page 7467 Rptr. 673.
[2] This ruling does not affect any motions either party may make under Practice Book §§ 18-5(b) or (c).
[3] General Statutes § 52-226a, titled Special finding that action or defense without merit and not in good faith, provides for the court to make a special finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith.

CT Page 7468