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

2,936 chars

defendants made knowingly false representations to
the trial court to the plaintiffs’ financial detriment. See
id., 526–27. In Simms, the trial court granted the defen-
dant a substantial alimony award; see id., 526; and,
in the present case, the plaintiff had to buy back his
property. See Perugini v. Giuliano, 148 Conn. App.
861, 872–75, 89 A.3d 358 (2014) (holding that absolute
immunity barred claim of negligent infliction of emo-
tional distress, even though alleged misconduct by
defendant attorney was for purpose of personal finan-
cial gain, because claim did not challenge purpose of
underlying proceeding and was premised on communi-
cations within judicial proceeding); Stone v. Pattis, 144
Conn. App. 79, 96, 99, 72 A.3d 1138 (2013) (holding
that absolute immunity applied to defendant attorneys’
conduct, even though alleged conduct involved decep-
tion, unfairness, and negligence).12
Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiff’s statutory
theft claim is more akin to claims of defamation and
fraud than to claims of vexatious litigation and abuse
of process.
12
The plaintiff argues that the present case is more analogous to Fiondella
v. Meriden, 186 Conn. App. 552, 200 A.3d 196 (2018), cert. denied, 330 Conn.
961, 199 A.3d 20 (2019), than to Simms because both cases involve the
intentional concealment of the underlying proceeding. See id., 555. We dis-
agree. In Fiondella, 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. Id. The plaintiffs in
Fiondella, who were not parties in the underlying declaratory judgment
action, subsequently brought claims of fraud, slander of title, and civil con-
spiracy against the defendants, alleging that the defendants had intentionally
concealed the declaratory judgment action from them, contrary to their
property rights and interests. Id., 555, 559–60. The Appellate Court held that
absolute immunity did not apply to bar the plaintiffs’ claims because the
plaintiffs were not parties to or involved in the underlying declaratory judg-
ment action; the claims were solely premised on conduct, not communica-
tions; and the alleged fraud did not occur during the pendency of a judicial
proceeding between these parties. Id., 562–63. The present case clearly
involves dishonest communications of a party opponent in an underlying
case in which the plaintiff was a party.
Page 54 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text