157 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Eno Farms: 10-acre parcel leased by Simsbury to CIL Housing in 1991 for low/moderate income housing; improvements remained leasehold property.
- CIL formed Eno Farms LP, financed by CHFA and state loans secured by first and second leasehold mortgages; project became a limited equity leasehold cooperative under a 1993 declaration.
- CHFA foreclosed on the leasehold mortgages in 2009; court rejected the cooperative/ residents’ claim of ownership and CHFA acquired title subject to the ground lease; CHFA assigned its interest to plaintiff (CHFA–Small Properties, Inc.).
- In 2012 plaintiff contracted to sell the property; defendants (resident lessees/association) recorded a Verified Claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-33f, clouding title and scaring off purchaser.
- Plaintiff sued to quiet title, for slander of title, and for an injunction to remove and prohibit further filings; trial court quieted title and issued an injunction but found defendants not liable for slander of title because they acted in good faith on advice of counsel.
- On appeal defendants argued (1) ownership should have been recognized, (2) trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction/indispensable party, and (3) opposing counsel violated Rule 3.3; plaintiff cross-appealed the slander-of-title ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ ownership claims were barred by collateral estoppel | Prior foreclosure adjudicated ownership; relitigation barred | Ownership not resolved as to defendants here; trial court erred rejecting ownership | Held for plaintiff: collateral estoppel applied; prior foreclosure/litigation resolved ownership |
| Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction / needed to join town or enforce arbitration clause | Action to quiet title under § 47-31 was proper; court has competence to adjudicate competing title claims | Court lacked jurisdiction because town (lessor/leased‑fee owner) was a necessary/indispensable nonparty and arbitration clause precluded suit | Held for plaintiff: defendants failed to brief claim; no persuasive basis to overturn jurisdictional ruling |
| Whether plaintiff’s counsel or town counsel violated Rule 3.3 (professional conduct) | N/A (plaintiff responded that Rule 3.3 is not a basis for civil relief) | Counsel had duty to take remedial measures; alleged knowing false filings and criminal deprivation of property required disclosure | Held for plaintiff: claim inadequately briefed and Rule 3.3 violations do not give rise to a civil cause of action here |
| Whether defendants committed slander of title (malice element) | Filing was made with malice or reckless disregard; trial court should have found malice and awarded damages | Defendants acted in good faith, relying on advice of counsel; lacked requisite malice | Held for defendants on slander counts: trial court’s credibility findings supported conclusion defendants lacked malice; slander claims failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Testa v. Geressy, 286 Conn. 291 (discusses standard of appellate review for collateral estoppel and plenary review of legal questions)
- Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541 (explains elements and application of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 144 Conn. App. 624 (defines actual malice standard in slander-of-title context and role of good-faith belief)
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 291 Conn. 620 (addresses that trial court need not accept self-serving assertions of defendants but credibility is for the factfinder)
- Konover Residential Corp. v. Elazazy, 148 Conn. App. 470 (affirming summary process rulings rejecting residents’ ownership claims; related prior appellate decision)