Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)

Citation: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Parent Document: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-05-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131755/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik/ ↗

Full Text

2,466 chars

claims were predicated entirely on statements made
in the course of a judicial proceeding such that our
application of the privilege disposed of the claims in
their entirety. See, e.g., Dorfman v. Smith, supra, 342
Conn. 604–605 (claims were based solely on false state-
ments in pleadings and other court documents); Scholz
v. Epstein, supra, 341 Conn. 4 (‘‘all of the defendant’s
alleged conduct occurred within the scope of the under-
lying foreclosure proceeding’’); Simms v. Seaman,
supra, 308 Conn. 528–29 (claims were based solely on
statements and conduct occurring during judicial pro-
ceeding); Rioux v. Barry, supra, 283 Conn. 343 (claims
were based solely on false statements made during
quasi-judicial proceeding). Here, application of the priv-
ilege would yield no such result.
We agree with the plaintiff that the present case
resembles Fiondella v. Meriden, supra, 186 Conn. App.
552, far more than it does any case in which the litigation
privilege has been applied to bar a cause of action. As
we observed about Fiondella in Dorfman: ‘‘In Fion-
della, the defendants successfully brought an action
seeking a declaratory judgment that they were the legal
owners of a portion of land by operation of the doctrine
of adverse possession. . . . The plaintiffs . . . who
were not parties in the underlying declaratory judgment
action, subsequently brought claims of fraud, slander
of title, and civil conspiracy against the defendants,
alleging that the defendants [had] intentionally con-
cealed the declaratory judgment action from them, con-
trary to their property rights and interests. . . . The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
absolute privilege, which the trial court granted. . . .
The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s judgment,
holding that absolute immunity did not apply to bar the
plaintiffs’ claims. In so holding, the Appellate Court
relied on the following facts: (1) the plaintiffs were
not parties to or involved in the underlying declaratory
May 28, 2024 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 29

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text