213 Conn.App. 841
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Powell‑Ferri filed for dissolution; a 1983 trust valued at ~$60–70 million was the principal disputed marital asset.
- In 2011 the trustees decanted all assets from the 1983 trust into a new trust; trustees then filed a declaratory‑judgment action seeking approval of the decantation.
- The Parrino law firm (representing Powell‑Ferri) filed a cross‑complaint alleging Ferri breached a duty to preserve marital assets by not seeking return of the trust assets.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ferri on that cross‑complaint; the Connecticut Supreme Court later declined to recognize a new tort (Ferri v. Powell‑Ferri, 317 Conn. 223).
- Ferri then sued Powell‑Ferri (and the Parrino defendants) for vexatious litigation; summary judgment for the Parrino defendants was affirmed on appeal, and after a trial the court ruled for Powell‑Ferri, finding she had probable cause to pursue the cross‑complaint because key facts were undisputed (Ferri knew of the decantation and took no steps to recover assets) and automatic dissolution orders prohibited dissipation of marital assets.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Powell‑Ferri had probable cause to initiate the cross‑complaint | Ferri: No reasonable, good‑faith belief in the facts or legal validity | Powell‑Ferri: Undisputed facts supported a reasonable belief; litigation not frivolous | Court: Probable cause existed; key facts undisputed (Ferri knew and did nothing) |
| Whether attorneys' probable cause can support client's probable cause | Ferri: Court improperly imputed attorneys' judgment to Powell‑Ferri | Powell‑Ferri: Lay litigants may rely on counsel; client need not know law better than lawyers | Court: Proper to conclude Powell‑Ferri had probable cause given attorneys' position and reasonable lay belief |
| Whether Powell‑Ferri had an independent duty to investigate or disclose facts to counsel | Ferri: She failed to investigate or identify what she told counsel; discovery evasions | Powell‑Ferri: Burden rests on Ferri to prove lack of probable cause; no showing facts given were false | Court: Ferri failed to meet his burden; the crucial facts were undisputed, so no proof of misleading conduct |
| Whether probable cause ceased during prosecution | Ferri: Even if initial cause existed, it later evaporated | Powell‑Ferri: Probable cause continued based on the same undisputed facts and the trustees' declaratory action | Court: No evidence that probable cause ceased; judgment for Powell‑Ferri affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferri v. Powell‑Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 (Conn. 2015) (Supreme Court declined to recognize new tort for failure to recapture trust assets)
- Ferri v. Powell‑Ferri, 200 Conn. App. 63 (Conn. App. 2020) (Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for Parrino defendants on probable cause)
- Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC, 207 Conn. App. 525 (Conn. App. 2021) (definition of lack of probable cause in vexatious‑litigation context)
- Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315 (Conn. 2010) (burden on plaintiff to prove lack of probable cause)
- Rockwell v. Rockwell, 178 Conn. App. 373 (Conn. App. 2017) (existence of probable cause is a question of law)
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2007) (standard of review and legal principles regarding probable cause)