Opinion
No. CV00-037 45 22 S
February 20, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The present action is a mortgage foreclosure action involving three mortgages evidencing security interests held by the plaintiff in the property known as 300 Old Coach Lane, Stratford, CT. The defendants Joseph E. Owen and Geraldine E. Owen (Defendants) have resided at the property for many years. The mortgages involved are as follows: A mortgage dated July 1, 1988 to the Saybrook Bank Trust Company as security for a demand note in the amount of $315,000 (Note 1); a mortgage dated July 2, 1998 to the Saybrook Bank Trust Company; August 2, 1988 as security for a demand note in the amount of $25,000 to the Saybrook Bank Trust Company (Note 2); a mortgage to the Whitney Bank Trust Company dated April 6, 1989 as security for a home equity line of credit in the amount of $45,000 (Note 3). The mortgages to the Saybrook Bank Trust Company are subject to modification agreements dated May 18, 1990. The plaintiff, RFC Property 1, Inc. is the proper holder of these mortgages by way of assignment.
The total debt due as of February 20, 2003, not including attorneys fees hereafter discussed, is as follows:
Note 1 Principal balance $315,000 Interest $284,167.19
Note 2 Principal balance $ 24,874.91 Interest $ 22,440.11
Note 3 Principal balance $ 44,715.06 Taxes paid by FDIC $ 55,214,38
No charges made for interest.
Taxes paid by plaintiff $ 40,540.26 Appraisal Fees $200.00 CT Page 2412
Title Search $150.00 ____________ Total Debt $888,301.91 ------------
The court finds the fair market value of the property is $550,000 and accordingly the total debt substantially exceeds the value of the property.
In August of 1995 the FDIC and the defendants entered into a settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement the defendants were to deliver $215,000 to the FDIC as a condition precedent to the transfer of its interest in the 300 Old Coach Lane property. The $215,000 payment was never made. The settlement agreement also contains a provision waiving the rights of the defendants to object to foreclosure in any counterclaims or defenses they might have.
The plaintiff also makes a claim for reasonable attorneys fees, as provided in the documents, in the amount of $155,635.88. The defendants make various attacks on the attorneys fees asserting that a normal foreclosure action should be able to be accomplished at a much lower attorney fee figure. However, this is not a normal foreclosure action and a sample weighing of the file would be a sufficient demonstration of that fact.
Certain hours have been redacted in order to reach this figure.
The court's normal starting point for determining reasonable attorneys fees is a calculation of a so-called "Lodestar" figure which is arrived at by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended in the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1993, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). "For each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done. Hours that are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary are to be excluded, and in dealing with such surpluses the court has discretion simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from the fee application. A prevailing party who is entitled to a fee award for a successful prosecution of successful claims is not entitled to a fee award for unsuccessful claims that were based on different facts and different legal theories." (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd. 148 F.3d 149, 172-73 (2nd Cir. 1998).
In Steiger v. J.S. Builders, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 32, 38 (1995), the court approved the following guidelines concerning calculation of attorneys fees for CUTPA violations:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee for similar work in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability `of the case'; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (12) awards in similar cases.
As previously noted this was not the usual case. A review of the documentation submitted reveals numerous discovery disputes; the necessity of preparing for trial on several occasions; and controversies regarding every step of the litigation. The bills have been paid by the client and the court finds that the attorneys fees requested are fair and appropriate. Accordingly the court finds that there is due under the mortgages the sum of $888,301.91 plus $155,635.88 in attorneys fees plus per diem interest to February 20, 2004, at the rate of $43.18 per diem on note 1 and $3.80 per diem on note 2 for a total of $18,954.45. Accordingly the court finds debt to be in the amount of $1,062,892.24 and the fair market value of the property to be $550,000.
Accordingly the court finds that a strict foreclosure is appropriate and therefore establishes a law day of March 23, 2004.
RUSH, J.