A recent ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court has clarified the circumstances under which attorney’s fees can be awarded in quiet title actions. This decision affects parties involved in real estate disputes and sets important legal precedents regarding the interpretation of statutory language related to costs. The case, Speer v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, was officially released on June 2, 2026, and is significant for its implications on future litigation.
The plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appealed the trial court's decision which granted Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s motion for judgment and costs, including attorney's fees. The case revolves around property ownership and the rights associated with it, and the outcome could influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Sheri Speer, the plaintiff, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the defendant. Speer initiated the action in October 2021, seeking to quiet title to her property located at 12 Lee Avenue in New London, Connecticut. In her original complaint, she alleged multiple claims against the bank, including violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Speer claimed that prior to June 2021, Deutsche Bank had issued her a Form 1099 for income based on the purported forgiveness of her debt. She argued that the bank's actions led to tax liabilities without providing her with a clear title to her property. In response, Deutsche Bank filed a motion to strike one of her claims, which the court granted, leading to a revised complaint focused solely on the quiet title action.
The bank then filed a motion for judgment and costs, asserting that it had disclaimed any interest in the property and should be awarded costs under General Statutes § 47-31 (e). This statute governs quiet title actions and allows for the taxation of costs at the court's discretion. However, the statute does not explicitly mention the awarding of attorney’s fees, which became a central issue in the appeal.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Appellate Court, composed of Judges Elgo, Clark, and Westbrook, ruled in favor of Speer regarding the award of attorney’s fees. The court found that the trial court had improperly awarded these fees, stating, “to the extent that § 47-31 (e) reflects the legislature’s intent to create a statutory exception to the American rule, that exception is expressly limited to the reimbursement of statutory costs and does not authorize a court to award a defendant reasonable attorney’s fees.”
The court emphasized that under the American rule, parties typically bear their own attorney's fees unless there is a specific contractual or statutory provision allowing for such recovery. The judges noted that the language of § 47-31 (e) only authorized the taxation of costs, and therefore, the award of attorney’s fees was not permissible.
Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's discretion in denying Speer's requests to amend her complaint and to substitute a new party defendant, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The judges found that the trial court acted within its rights, as the requests were made at a late stage in the proceedings and the claims had been previously abandoned.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future quiet title actions in Connecticut. By clarifying that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded under § 47-31 (e), the court reinforces the principle of the American rule, which generally requires parties to bear their own litigation costs unless explicitly stated otherwise in the law. This decision may discourage frivolous claims, as parties will now face limitations on the potential recovery of attorney’s fees.
The ruling also highlights the importance of clear statutory language in determining the rights of parties in litigation. It emphasizes that courts will strictly interpret statutes that deviate from the American rule, ensuring that any exceptions are clearly defined. This could lead to more cautious drafting of future statutes related to costs and fees in litigation, as lawmakers may seek to avoid ambiguity.
What’s Next
The decision in Speer v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is final unless appealed to a higher court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions. However, this case sets a precedent that will likely influence similar disputes involving quiet title actions in Connecticut.