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

2,848 chars

related to the underlying foreclosure proceeding for the
privilege to apply.16
As explained in part II B of this opinion, it is well
established that ‘‘communications uttered or published
in the course of judicial proceedings are [protected by
the litigation privilege] so long as they are in some way
pertinent to the subject of the controversy.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Hopkins v. O’Connor, supra,
282 Conn. 832. The plaintiff does not dispute that the
underlying foreclosure proceeding was a judicial pro-
ceeding. Nor does he dispute that recording the certifi-
cate of foreclosure on the land records and the
subsequent sale of the property were relevant to the
foreclosure proceeding. The only dispute is whether
these two actions took place within the scope of the
‘‘judicial proceeding,’’ as that term is understood in our
case law regarding absolute immunity.
Consistent with our generous test for relevancy on
this score, this court has explained that the phrase
‘‘judicial proceeding’’ has been defined ‘‘liberally to
encompass much more than civil litigation or criminal
trials.’’ Hopkins v. O’Connor, supra, 282 Conn. 839. The
privilege clearly applies ‘‘to every step of the proceeding
until [its] final disposition’’; id., 826; including ‘‘to state-
ments made in pleadings or other documents prepared
16
The defendant also argues that this claim is not within the scope of the
certified issue. The defendant is correct that the claims presented to this
court are limited to those for which certification was granted and that, if
this court declined to certify a particular issue, then that issue is not properly
before this court. See, e.g., In re Natalie S., 325 Conn. 833, 847 n.5, 160 A.3d
1056 (2017). As the certified issue in the present case is phrased, we believe
it reasonably includes the plaintiff’s claim that the Appellate Court improp-
erly held that the defendant’s conduct of untimely recording the certificate
of foreclosure and assisting in the sale of the property to a third party
occurred during the course of the foreclosure proceeding. See Scholz v.
Epstein, supra, 335 Conn. 943. Moreover, to the extent there was any uncer-
tainty in this regard, addressing this claim inflicts no unfairness on the
defendant, who had the opportunity to fully brief this issue, both in this
court and in the Appellate Court.
January 25, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 59

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text