§ 67-10
- Citation
- § 67-10
- Parent Document
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2024-12-24
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)
- § 67-10
Full Text
857 chars§ 67-10. In his notices, he cites several cases from this court and our Supreme
Court for the proposition that he has a ‘‘vested right’’ to mandatory attorney’s
fees under General Statutes § 42-150bb. We disagree. First, the defendant
never filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21
and, thus, has not availed himself of the appropriate vehicle for requesting
such fees under § 42-150bb. See Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v.
Daigle, 282 Conn. 418, 432, 922 A.2d 1056 (2007). Second, and more funda-
mentally, the defendant has represented himself since the inception of this
case and, therefore, is not entitled to attorney’s fees. See Dunn v. Peter L.
Leepson, P.C., 79 Conn. App. 366, 372, 830 A.2d 325, cert. denied, 266 Conn.
923, 835 A.2d 472 (2003).