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

2,267 chars

374 F. Supp. 3d 462, 493 (W.D. Pa. 2019); Beardmore
v. Jacobsen, 131 F. Supp. 3d 656, 669 (S.D. Tex. 2015);
Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC,
supra, 213; Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 279
Conn. 745, 771, 905 A.2d 623 (2006); Yuille v. Parnoff,
189 Conn. App. 124, 137 n.11, 206 A.3d 766, cert. denied,
332 Conn. 902, 208 A.3d 659 (2019).
Although some of these cases may be distinguishable
from the present case in that they involved conversion
and not statutory civil theft or did not involve theft
by an attorney, none of them supports the opposite
conclusion. To the contrary, the plaintiff has not cited,
and this court has not discovered, any federal or state
court decision holding that absolute immunity does not
apply to a claim of statutory theft or a similar type of
claim. Accordingly, considering all of the public policy
concerns raised by the parties—including those raised
in Simms and others unique to the present case—we
conclude that the Appellate Court correctly determined
that the litigation privilege applies to bar the plaintiff’s
statutory theft claim.
III
Finally, the plaintiff argues that, even if the litigation
privilege applies to claims of statutory theft, the privi-
lege does not apply in the present case to the extent
his claim is premised on the defendant’s delayed
recording of the certificate of foreclosure on the land
records and his role in the subsequent sale of the prop-
erty, because this conduct occurred outside the scope
of the foreclosure action. The plaintiff argues that, once
title vested in Benchmark after the running of the law
days, the foreclosure proceeding reached its final dispo-
sition, and anything that occurred afterward was not
part of the foreclosure proceeding. The defendant dis-
agrees that the conduct alleged was not sufficiently
Page 58 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text