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

2,397 chars

of the statutory theft claim he brought against the defen-
dant, Juda J. Epstein, for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion on the ground of absolute immunity. Epstein, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Connecticut, repre-
sented Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. (Bench-
mark), in the underlying foreclosure proceeding. The
plaintiff claims that, under the circumstances of this
case, the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that
the defendant enjoyed absolute immunity from the
plaintiff’s claim of statutory theft, specifically, by
determining that (1) public policy considerations were
served by affording the defendant this immunity, and
(2) all of the defendant’s alleged conduct occurred
within the scope of the underlying foreclosure proceed-
ing. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appel-
late Court.
As alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, the following
facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
and procedural history are relevant to our review of
this claim. The plaintiff resides at 405 Helen Street in
Bridgeport and became the owner of an adjacent lot
located at 744 Stillman Street in Bridgeport (Stillman
property). The plaintiff uses these two properties
together to operate his business, which includes the
storing, repair, and resale of industrial equipment. When
the plaintiff failed to pay $1018.74 in real property taxes
on the Stillman property owed to the city of Bridgeport
(city), the city recorded a certificate of lien on the
land records for the unpaid taxes, interest and related
charges. The city subsequently sold the lien to Bench-
mark pursuant to an assignment recorded on the
land records.
The defendant, acting as Benchmark’s attorney,
began a civil action against the plaintiff to foreclose
the lien. The summons recited the plaintiff’s address
as 69 Settlers Farm Road, Monroe, CT 06468. The state
marshal’s return of service did not reflect that service
January 25, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 35

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text