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

2,505 chars

a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding’’; (internal quota-
tion marks omitted) id., 833; as long as the statements
are sufficiently relevant to the issues involved in a pro-
posed or ongoing judicial proceeding, with the test for
relevancy described as ‘‘generous . . . .’’ Id., 839. This
is true even if the communication is false or malicious.
Id., 838–39. In light of the elements of statutory theft
and the specific claim of statutory theft raised in the
present case, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claim of
statutory theft is more analogous to a claim of fraud
or defamation, as opposed to a claim of vexatious litiga-
tion or abuse of process, because it is premised on the
communication of false or misleading statements.
The plaintiff maintains, to the contrary, that his claim
is not premised on the communication of false or mis-
leading statements. Rather, he argues that it is the defen-
dant’s conduct in relation to him, not the defendant’s
conduct in relation to the trial court, that is pertinent,
and he does not allege that the defendant made any
false communications to him. It is true that theft does
not necessarily involve false communications and that
the only conduct alleged to have been taken against
the plaintiff by the defendant is the theft. None of the
alleged false communications and misrepresentations
was made directly to the plaintiff.
But, as discussed, the specific theft the plaintiff alleged
here is premised on these false communications and
misrepresentations because the defendant allegedly
perpetrated the theft by means of the communications.
The plaintiff’s complaint clearly concludes that the
defendant’s alleged false communications and misrep-
resentations to the trial court resulted in the defendant’s
stealing his property. Without these allegations, the
plaintiff’s complaint would consist of only the legal
conclusion that theft occurred, without describing how
it occurred. Thus, the fact that the defendant made these
false statements to the trial court, not to the plaintiff,
January 25, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 51

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text