Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Citation
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-03-14
Other Sections in This Document (30)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
- Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
Full Text
1,595 charsIn denying the plaintiff any recovery of legal fees under the sublease, the court concluded that litigation was not necessary to enforce the terms of the agreement. The court made the following relevant findings. Following the institution of legal proceedings, the defendant continued to pay rent as it had in the past, that is to say, it consistently paid rent, but frequently late. When the disputed property taxes were computed, the defendant paid them. Commencement of the action added another level of expense and inconvenience for *866the parties. Otherwise late payments were further delayed as the addition of attorneys to the chain of payment increased the time consumed by the process. The plaintiffs attorney was the husband of the plaintiffs president and an officer of the plaintiff corporation and, although bills were actually presented, there was no evidence that they would be paid unless they were awarded by judgment. The hourly rates stated in the bills were equal to rates charged by attorneys specializing in litigation, although the plaintiffs attorney was not experienced in litigation. The court doubted that litigation would have been undertaken had the attorney-client relationship been an “ordinary business transaction.” The court noted finally that the sublease contained no late fee provision and that to award attorney’s fees to a party that brings suit because the other party has been consistently late in its payments would, as a practical matter, be tantamount to a late penalty far in excess of the amount of late rent, a result not agreed to by the parties.