Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC (Concurrence)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** TOTAL RECYCLING SERVICES OF CONNECTICUT, INC., ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT OIL RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC CONCURRENCE BEACH, J., concurring in result. I respectfully concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I believe that although the cases of Heller v. D. W. Fish Realty Co., 93 Conn. App. 727, 890 A.2d 113 (2006), and Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn. App. 189, 752 A.2d 1098 (2000), arose in the context of claims for attorney s fees pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes ยง 42-110a et seq., their reasoning applies with equal force to claims for attorney s fees pursuant to contractual provisions. If an attorney s time and effort practicably can be allocated between two contracts, one which is subject to contractual attorney s fees and one which is not, then the time should be so allocated. If no allocation is practicable under the circumstances of the case, then a reasonable attorney s fee should be awarded without division between the contracts. The principle is sensible and no authority to the contrary has been presented. The issue of practicable allocation is one of fact for the trial court. In light of its orders, the trial court in this case presumably decided that the total time could be allocated between the contracts. The record is silent on the precise matter, but the ruling clearly reflects such an understanding. When the record is silent, we do not presume error. The court was not bound to credit any particular testimony, expert or otherwise. Because the record does not show that the trial court could not reasonably have reached its result, I agree with the majority that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
