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

2,424 chars

in connection with a court proceeding.’’ Petyan v. Ellis,
         200 Conn. 243, 252, 510 A.2d 1337 (1986). Additionally,
         this court has extended the litigation privilege to ‘‘those
         preparatory communications that may be directed to
         the goal of the proceeding.’’ Hopkins v. O’Connor,
         supra, 832; see id., 837 (applying litigation privilege to
         defamation claim premised on police officer’s state-
         ments pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-503 (a) that
         resulted in plaintiff’s being detained in psychiatric hos-
         pital for evaluation because statements that plaintiff
         had psychiatric disabilities and was dangerous were
         clearly made pursuant to § 17a-503 as ‘‘the first step
         in the ‘distinct possibility’ of a judicial proceeding’’).
         Similarly, our Appellate Court has held that ‘‘discussion
         in the hallway, as part of a postverdict settlement con-
         ference, was a step in the ongoing judicial proceeding.’’
         Kenneson v. Eggert, 196 Conn. App. 773, 783, 230 A.3d
         795 (2020). We disagree with the plaintiff that recording
         the certificate of foreclosure and assisting Benchmark
         in conducting the judicial sale of the property to a third
         party occurred outside the scope of the foreclosure pro-
         ceeding.
            The plaintiff argues that recording the certificate of
         foreclosure occurred after title vested and after the
         running of the law days, and, therefore, this occurred
         after the final disposition of the foreclosure proceeding.
         We agree with the Appellate Court that, because the
         defendant recorded the certificate of foreclosure in the
         land records ‘‘in his capacity as Benchmark’s attorney
         in the foreclosure proceeding, pursuant to the require-
         ments of [General Statutes] § 49-16, that action was
         clearly conducted in connection with, and was related
         and relevant to, the foreclosure proceeding.’’ (Footnote
         omitted.) Scholz v. Epstein, supra, 198 Conn. App. 230.
         Section 49-16 requires in relevant part that, ‘‘[w]hen any
         mortgage of real estate has been foreclosed, and the
         time limited for redemption has passed, and the title
Page 60                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL               January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text