Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)

Citation: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Parent Document: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244827/scholz-v-epstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,986 chars

The plaintiff, S, sought to recover damages from the defendant attorney for
            alleged statutory (§ 52-564) theft in connection with the defendant’s
            conduct during prior judicial proceedings involving the foreclosure of
            a municipal lien filed against S’s real property. The defendant, acting
            as B Co.’s attorney, commenced the prior action to foreclose the lien,
            which B Co. had purchased from a municipality. During the foreclosure
            action, S was defaulted for failure to appear, and the court thereafter
            rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. After the running of the law
            days, and approximately six months after title vested in B Co., the
            defendant filed a certificate of foreclosure in the municipal land records.
            B Co. subsequently sold the property to a third party. S alleged in the
            present action that the defendant, with the intent to deprive S of his
            property or to appropriate the property to B Co., had perpetrated a
            fraud on the trial court during the foreclosure proceedings by knowingly
            making materially false representations about the state marshal’s inabil-
            ity to serve process on S and about the value of S’s property, which
            purportedly led the court to render the foreclosure judgment. The trial
            court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the present action for
            lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that, because all of the
            defendant’s alleged conduct occurred during the foreclosure proceed-
            ings, S’s statutory theft claim was barred by the litigation privilege,
            which affords attorneys absolute immunity from liability for certain
            statements made or conduct during judicial proceedings. The Appellate
            Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that all of the

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text