******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
MEADOWBROOK CENTER, INC. v. ROBERT

BUCHMAN

(AC 37979)

Lavine, Mullins and Bishop, Js.

Argued September 13—officially released December 6, 2016

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Hartford, Robaina, J. [judgment]; Wahla, J. [motion for

attorney’s fees].)

Juri E. Taalman, with whom, on the brief, was Timothy Brignole, for the appellant (defendant).

Edward M. Rosenthal, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

BISHOP, J. This appealrequires us to assess the interplay between a legislative mandate based on a public

policy and a procedural rule of practice. On appeal, the

defendant, Robert Buchman, claims that the trial court

incorrectly denied his postjudgment motion for attorney’s fees, sought pursuant to General Statutes § 42-

150bb, on the basis that his motion for attorney’s fees

was untimely, pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21.1 We

reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following undisputed procedural and factual

background is pertinent to our consideration of the

issue on appeal. The plaintiff nursing home facility,

Meadowbrook Center, Inc., brought an action against

the defendant based on contract and promissory estoppel relating to its care of the defendant’s mother. The

admission agreement executed by the plaintiff and the

defendant, as a responsible party, contained a clause

providing for the responsible party to pay the cost of

collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in the

event an overdue account is referred to an agency or

attorney for collection. Following a trial to the court,

Hon. Robert J. Hale, judge trial referee, judgment was

rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $47,561.15 with

attorney’s fees to be decided postjudgment.

On appeal, however, this courtreversed the judgment

and remanded the case to the trial court with direction

to render judgment in favor of the defendant. Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 149 Conn. App. 177,

212, 90 A.3d 219 (2014). The order from this court was

dated April 8, 2014. Thereafter, on April 30, 2014, the

court, Robaina, J., rendered judgment for the defendant. The defendant then submitted a bill of costs on

May 16, 2014, and, on June 4, 2014, the thirty-fifth day

after judgment, the defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. On January 29, 2015, the court,

Wahla, J., conducted a hearing on the defendant’s

motion in which he claimed attorney’s fees of $74,918.70

and costs of $1337.38. On April 7, 2015, the court issued

its decision denying the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees on the basis that the motion was not timely.

Rejecting the defendant’s argument that attorney’s fees

pursuant to § 42-150bb are a component of damages

and, therefore, not subject to the time limits of Practice

Book § 11-21, the court stated: ‘‘Because I conclude that

attorney fees were not a component of damages, the

defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs [is]

not timely, hence I am constrained to agree with the

plaintiff. The defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED.’’

Following the court’s ruling, the defendant filed a

motion for reconsideration and reargument on April 17,

2015. In this motion, the defendant argued, inter alia,

that the court incorrectly had failed to rule whether the

time limit set forth in Practice Book § 11-21 is manda-
tory or directory. The defendant alleged that he had

raised this issue in his memorandum of law in support

of attorney’s fees and at the hearing on his motion. In

response, the plaintiff urged the court to not consider

the defendant’s motion as, ‘‘the defendant wants to

rehash the same arguments that he already made which

were unpersuasive.’’ By order dated May 12, 2015, Judge

Wahla denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and reargument without comment. This appeal

followed.

The defendant claims, in essence, that once the court

determined that Practice Book § 11-21 governed the

defendant’s request for attorney’s fees, the court should

have determined that the time limitation contained in

the rule was directory and, therefore, the court should

have exercised its discretion to permit a filing that was

five days late and, finally, that the court should have

awarded attorney’s fees in light of the mandate of § 42-

150bb and the fact that the defendant’s delay in filing

was reasonable and minimal.

Our analysis requires discussion of § 42-150bb, captioned ‘‘Attorney’s fees in action based on consumer

contract or lease,’’ and of Practice Book § 11-21, captioned ‘‘Motion for Attorney’s Fees.’’ In analyzing these

two enactments, we must determine whether realizing

the statutory entitlement to attorney’s fees, pursuant

to § 42-150bb, is necessarily limited by the thirty day

filing requirement in Practice Book § 11-21, or whether

a trial court has the discretion to excuse a filing delay

in order to effectuate the public policy of § 42-150bb.

On the basis of the record before us, it is clear that

the court did not believe it had such discretion, and,

therefore, did not exercise it. Because the interpretation

of a statute or rule of practice involves a question of

law, our review of the trial court’s interpretation is

plenary. See Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith,

265 Conn. 723, 734, 830 A.2d 228 (2003).

We first address the statute. Section 42-150bb provides in relevant part: ‘‘Whenever any contract or lease

entered into on or after October 1, 1979, to which a

consumer is a party, provides for the attorney’s fee of

the commercial party to be paid by the consumer, an

attorney’s fee shall be awarded as a matter of law to

the consumer who successfully prosecutes or defends

an action or a counterclaim based upon the contract

or lease. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) The parties do not

dispute that, for purposes of the application of § 42-

150bb, the plaintiff is a commercial party and the defendant is a consumer. In sum, the provisions of § 42-150bb

are applicable to the case at hand.2

Our Supreme Court has stated: ‘‘Under § 42-150bb,

the court has no latitude to deny [attorney’s fees] to a

consumer who successfully defends an action brought

against him by a commercial party.’’ Rizzo Pool Co. v.

Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58, 66, 689 A.2d 1097 (1997).
Attorney’s fees are available, rather, by operation of

law. Id. Therefore, the entitlement to attorney’s fees,

pursuant to § 42-150bb, is mandatory.3 Our Supreme

Court also has held that mandatory statutory provisions

relate to matters of substance. Statewide Grievance

Committee v. Rozbicki, 219 Conn. 473, 480–81, 595 A.2d

819 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094, 112 S. Ct. 1170,

117 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1992). Section 42-150bb is a legislative

vehicle for consumer protection that affords consumers, as a matter of law, awards of reasonable attorney’s

fees for their successful defense or prosecution of

actions based on consumer contracts.4 Accordingly, the

entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 42-150bb is

a mandatory, substantive right.

We now turn to PracticeBook § 11-21, which provides

in relevant part: ‘‘Motions for attorney’s fees shall be

filed with the trial court within thirty days following

the date on which the final judgment of the trial court

was rendered.’’ (Emphasis added.) There is no dispute

between the parties that the defendant’s motion for

attorney’s fees was untimely as it was not filed within

thirty days of judgment, but, rather, five days later.

Moreover, the record makes plain that the trial court

believed it was constrained to deny the defendant’s

motion on the basis that it was not timely filed in accordance with § 11-21. The question before us is whether

the trial court correctly assumed that the time limitation

of § 11-21 is mandatory and not directory.5

If the former,

then the court had no leeway to exercise its discretion.

If the latter, however, the court was required to exercise

its discretion to determine whether to excuse the tardiness of the defendant’s motion and to make an award

of attorney’s fees.6 Finally, in a case in which the court

has discretion to act, but fails to exercise its discretion,

that failure alone is error. State v. Martin, 201 Conn.

74, 88, 513 A.2d 116 (1986); see also State v. Lee, 229

Conn. 60, 73–74, 640 A.2d 553 (1994) (‘‘[i]n the discretionary realm, it is improper for the trial court to fail

to exercise its discretion’’).

As a general proposition, our decisional law has made

it clear that the rules of practice are not intended to

enlarge or abrogate substantive rights. See In re

Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 639, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).

In the case at hand, as we have noted, a consumer’s

right to attorney’s fees pursuant to the mandate of § 42-

150bb is substantive as that right represents the core

of the statute and the reason for its enactment. Thus,

although we recognize the right of the judges of the

Superior Court to enact rules of practice for the orderly

conduct of the court’s affairs, the enforcement of those

rules must be accomplished in the light of the substantive rights they are intended to actualize.

Also, in assessing any particular rule of practice, we

are guided by the provisions of Practice Book § 1-8,

which states: ‘‘The design of these rules being to facili-
tate business and advance justice, they will be interpreted liberally in any case where it shall be manifest that

a strict adherence to them will work surprise or

injustice.’’

With this foundation in mind, we turn to our analysis

of Practice Book § 11-21. At the outset, we note that

our Supreme Court has made clear that the proper

procedural vehicle for a party seeking attorney’s fees

in an action based on a consumer contract is by filing a

motion pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21. Traystman,

Coric & Kermamides, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418,

432, 922 A.2d 1056 (2007) (Traystman). The reach of

Traystman, however, is not as broad as the plaintiff

contends. Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, the court

in Traystman did not determine whether the thirty day

time provision in Practice Book § 11-21 is mandatory.

Instead, the court focused its analysis on whether a

successful litigant in a consumer contract case could

seek attorney’s fees as part of a bill of costs filed pursuant to Practice Book § 18-5. Id., 432. Answering this

question in the negative, our Supreme Court opined

that the appropriate route for a successful party in a

consumer contract action is to file a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21. Id.,

432–33.

Importantly, the court in Traystman explicitly

declined to opine on whether the provisions of Practice

Book § 11-21 are mandatory or directory. ‘‘[T]he trial

court saw no need to consider whether the time limits

provided by § 11-21 are mandatory or directory, or to

exercise its discretion to excuse compliance with those

time limits. Indeed, in the proceedings before the trial

court the defendant never responded to the plaintiff’s

claim that the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees

was time barred by § 11-21, never argued that the rule’s

timing provision was directory rather than mandatory,

and never explained why his failure to comply with the

rule should be excused. We conclude that, under these

circumstances, it would be inappropriate for this court

to review the action of the trial court as if it had treated

the portion of the defendant’s bill of costs requesting

attorney’s fees pursuant to § 42-150bb as the effective

equivalent of a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to

Practice Book § 11-21 and had exercised its discretion

to excuse compliance with the rule’s timing requirement.’’ Id., 433.

In sum, although our Supreme Court in Traystman

determined that Practice Book § 11-21 is the appropriate vehicle for a successful party in a consumer contract case to seek attorney’s fees, the court did not

opine on whether the rule’s timing requirement is mandatory or directory.

In analyzing Practice Book § 11-21, we must determine whether the use of the term ‘‘shall’’ creates a

mandatory or directory duty, as the use of the word
‘‘shall’’ does not automatically create a mandatory duty.7

Our Supreme Court has noted: ‘‘[A]lthough we have

often stated [that] [d]efinite words, such as must or

shall, ordinarily express legislative mandates of a nondirectory nature . . . we also have noted that the use of

the word shall, though significant, does not invariably

establish a mandatory duty.’’ (Citation omitted; internal

quotation marks omitted.) Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272

Conn. 734, 744, 865 A.2d 428 (2005). Rather, the test to

apply in determining whetherthe use ofthe word ‘‘shall’’

connotes a mandatory duty, or is merely directory, is

‘‘whether the prescribed mode of action is the essence

of the thing to be accomplished, or in other words,

whether it relates to a matter of substance or convenience. . . . If it is a matter of substance, the statutory

provision is mandatory. . . . If, however, the legislative provision is designed to secure order, system and

dispatch in the proceedings, it is generally held to be

directory, especially where the requirement is stated in

affirmative terms unaccompanied by negative words.

. . . Such a statutory provision is one which prescribes

what shall be done but does not invalidate action upon

a failure to comply.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Committee

v. Rozbicki, supra, 219 Conn. 480–81.8

In the case at hand, we are persuaded that the thirty

day time provision set forth in Practice Book § 11-21

is intended to secure order and dispatch in the timely

disposition of a pending issue. Therefore, the time limitation contained in the rule is directory and not mandatory. Indeed, our Supreme Court has observed that § 11-

21 was adopted apparently in response to concerns

raised following a decision of this court allowing an

award of attorney’s fees five months after the entry of

judgment. Traystman, Coric & Kermamides, P.C. v.

Daigle, supra, 282 Conn. 432 (‘‘[i]t is reasonable to conclude that § 11-21 was adopted to avoid an extended

period of uncertainty about this potential liability after

judgment’’); see Practice Book (1999) § 11-21, commentary; Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights &

Opportunities, 237 Conn. 28, 30, 675 A.2d 851 (1996).

From this review, we glean two important facts. First,

the purpose of the timing provision in Practice Book

§ 11-21 is procedural and intended to facilitate the progress of the case since the timing of such a motion does

not go to the essence of the right to reasonable attorney’s fees. Second, the purpose of the timing provision

in § 11-21 is to avoid a long period of delay between

judgment and a request for attorney’s fees.9

In light of the public policy of § 42-150bb to balance

the equities between commercial contractors and consumers, the mandate of the statute that attorney’s fees

be awarded to a consumer who successfully defends a

consumer contract claim, we conclude that the timing

provision of Practice Book § 11-21 is directory and not
mandatory. To hold to the contrary would rigidly exalt

form over substance and, in the case of a minor failure

to adhere to the rule’s timing requirement, would prevent the court from fulfilling the public policy driven

mandate of the statute.

Our reasoning is consistent with the analysis of our

Supreme Court regarding an analogous rule of procedure. In Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki,

supra, 219 Conn. 480, our Supreme Court was called

upon to assess Practice Book (1991) § 31 (a) (now Practice Book § 2-47 [a]) concerning the attorney grievance

procedure. In part, § 31 (a) stated: ‘‘Any interim proceedings to the contrary notwithstanding, a hearing on

the merits of the [presentment] shall be held within

sixty days of the date the complaint was filed with the

court.’’ Faced with a record that demonstrated that a

hearing on the merits had not been held until several

months after the presentment, the court was required

to assess whether the sixty day time period set forth

in the rule was mandatory or directory. The court stated:

‘‘Practice Book § 31 (a) is designed to encourage order

and dispatch in the prosecution of presentments. This

section is cast in affirmative words, contains no penalty

for noncompliance and purports only to establish a time

limit for acting upon complaints. We conclude therefore

that its terms are directory, and not mandatory, and

that failure to meet its time requirements does not

deprive the court of jurisdiction.’’ Id., 481.

Our Supreme Court’s analysis in Rozbicki is applicable equally to Practice Book § 11-21. The timing of a

motion for attorney’s fees is not a matter of substance.

Instead, as we have noted, the substance of § 11-21 is

the creation of a pathway for a party to seek the fees

to which he or she is entitled which, in this instance,

is as a successful consumer pursuant to the dictates of

§ 42-150bb. As with Practice Book (1991) § 31 (a), the

timing requirement set forth in Practice Book § 11-21

is intended to avoid extensive delay and ensure order.

In sum, the timing provision is a matter of procedure

and, therefore, directory.10

As noted, the court denied the defendant’s motion

for attorney’s fees because it felt constrained by the

thirty day time limitation in Practice Book § 11-21 for

the filing of such a motion. As a consequence, the court

did not exercise its discretion to determine whether

strict adherence to the rule would ‘‘work surprise or

injustice.’’ Practice Book § 1-8. Accordingly, a hearing

on the defendant’s motion is necessary.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded

with direction to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s

motion for attorney’s fees consistent with this opinion.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1

In his brief, the defendant also repeats his argument, made at trial, that

counsel fees are a component of damages under the pertinent statute, and,

therefore, the rule regarding the filing of a postjudgment motion for attor-
ney’s fees does not apply. Because this argument was rejected by our

Supreme Court in Traystman, Coric & Kermamides, P.C. v. Daigle, 282

Conn. 418, 429–31, 922 A.2d 1056 (2007), it does not warrant further discussion.

2 Section 42-150bb further provides that ‘‘the size of the attorney’s fee

awarded to the consumer shall be based as far as practicable upon the

terms governing the size of the fee for the commercial party.’’ Since the

amount of attorney’s fees set forth in the consumer contract in the present

case was stated as ‘‘reasonable,’’ the attorney’s fees to be awarded to the

successful consumer similarly should be an amount determined by the court

to be reasonable.

3 Our Supreme Court has stated previously that ‘‘§ 42-150bb is in derogation of the common law. Specifically, [t]he 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. . . . Connecticut adheres to the American rule. . . .

There are few exceptions. . . . Section 42-150bb is, however, one of those

exceptions to the common-law rule.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation

marks omitted.) Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 307 Conn. 608, 616–17, 57

A.3d 342 (2013).

4 Our Supreme Court has discussed previously the legislative history of

§ 42-150bb and ‘‘recognized that it was designed to provide equitable results

for a consumer who successfully defended an action under a commercial

contract and the commercial party who was entitled to attorney’s fees.’’

Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 307 Conn. 608, 617–18, 57 A.3d 342 (2013).

Our review of the legislative history supports this proposition as well. As

a sponsor of the bill, Senator Salvatore DePiano commented during a Senate

hearing: ‘‘This bill would require that in a specified situation attorney’s fees

be awarded to a consumer who successfully brings or defends an action

based upon a contract or lease whenever such contract or lease provides

for the attorney’s fees of a commercial party.’’ 22 S. Proc., Pt. 13, 1979 Sess.,

p. 4275, remarks of Senator DePiano. In the House, similar comments were

made by Representative Richard Tulisano, another sponsor of the bill. He

commented: ‘‘Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today provides [for] the

first time the ability for consumers in this state to obtain attorney’s fees,

of reasonable amount, as a result of defending or prosecuting any action

in which the commercial party has provided for attorney’s fees for their

own behalf. What this does is give some equity to the situation.’’ 22 H.R.

Proc., Pt. 22, 1979 Sess., p. 7489, remarks of Representative Tulisano. Representative Tulisano further commented that the purpose of the bill was to

provide balance where the consumer contract, typically drawn up by the

commercial party, provides for attorney’s fees in the event of consumer

liability under the contract. Id., 7489–90.

5 We recognize that recently this court analyzed Practice Book § 11-21 in

Cornelius v. Rosario, 167 Conn. App. 120, 143 A.3d 611 (2016). At issue in

Cornelius was the defendant’s filing of a motion for attorney’s fees twenty

months after judgment had entered, and the question was what event, in a

complicated procedural history, triggered the thirty day filing deadline of

§ 11-21. Id., 132–33. In Cornelius, however, this court did not consider the

question of whether the thirty day filing provision in § 11-21 is mandatory

or directory, which is the question we now confront. Thus, while this court,

in Cornelius, agreed with the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion

for attorney’s fees as untimely,the question of whether § 11-21 timing requirement is mandatory or directory was not addressed. The court in Cornelius

opined: ‘‘The trial court held that because the motion was filed more than

thirty days following the date that the final judgment was rendered, it was

untimely under Practice Book § 11-21. We agree.’’ Id., 136. Because this

court, in Cornelius, offered no opinion as to whetherthe court has discretion

to entertain a motion for attorney’s fees, filed more than thirty days after

judgment, Cornelius is not controlling.

6

In this regard, we are mindful that discretion is not merely leeway in

decision-making. Discretion ‘‘means a legal discretion to be exercised in

conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not

to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.’’ (Emphasis in original;

internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colton, 234 Conn. 683, 703, 663

A.2d 339 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140, 116 S. Ct. 972, 133 L. Ed. 2d

892 (1996).

7 This court, in Morera v. Thurber, 162 Conn. App. 261, 267–68, 131 A.3d

1155 (2016), looked beyond the plain meaning of the word ‘‘shall’’ to determine whether its use in Practice Book § 25-26 (g) was mandatory or direc-
tory. The analysis hinged on the use of both ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘may’’ in the same

section, which required a hearing under certain circumstances, and the court

stated: ‘‘[W]hen a [drafter] opts to use the words ‘shall’ and ‘may’ in the

same statute, they ‘must then be assumed to have been used with discrimination and a full awareness of the difference in their ordinary meanings.’ ’’

Id., 268. Unlike the rule under scrutiny in Morera, neither of the two enactments in question here contains such a duality.

8 We recognize that the test utilized in Rozbicki related to statutory provisions and not Practice Book sections. The interpretation of rules of practice,

however, is to be governed by the same principles as those regulating

statutory interpretation. Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, supra,

265 Conn. 734. Accordingly, ‘‘the test to determine whether a statute is

mandatory or directory is applicable to rules of practice.’’ State v. Ocasio,

50 Conn. App. 748, 755 n.7, 718 A.2d 1018 (1998), rev’d on other grounds,

253 Conn. 375, 751 A.2d 825 (2000).

9 Although we do not seek to interfere with the court’s exercise of discretion, we note from the trial court record that the plaintiff made no claim

that permitting a filing late by five days would be unjust or create surprise.

Rather, the plaintiff simply claimed that the rule’s timing provision was mandatory.

10 We recognize that the implication of this opinion is that the term ‘‘shall’’

in § 42-150bb is mandatory while the same term in Practice Book § 11-21

is directory. Our conclusions are based on the context and purpose of the

statute and the rule of practice. As noted, the purpose of the statute is to

create equity between a commercial contractor and a consumer in a consumer contract that provides attorney’s fees for the contractor. To suggest

that the term ‘‘shall’’ in § 42-150bb is merely directory would eviscerate the

statute’s central purpose. In that context, the term is mandatory. On the

contrary, as discussed, the use of the term ‘‘shall’’ in Practice Book § 11-21

is directory because it does not directly bear on the essence of the matter,

which, in this case, is to make an award of attorney’s fees in accord with

the dictates of § 42-150bb.