Fiondella v. City of Meriden
186 Conn. App. 552
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (trust and LLC) own lots in a Meriden subdivision (Shaker Court) and allege their deeds reference access via Shaker Court.
- In 2004 defendants Adele and Harry Eberhart (and their attorney McManus) brought a declaratory judgment action claiming adverse possession of land under a driveway adjacent to their home; the trial court and this court later held for the Eberharts.
- Plaintiffs later sued the Eberharts, McManus, and certain city officials alleging fraud, slander of title, and civil conspiracy, claiming the Eberharts concealed the declaratory action and deprived subdivision lot owners of required notice under Practice Book § 17-56(b).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting the litigation privilege barred plaintiffs’ claims.
- The trial court granted the motion, holding the litigation privilege applied; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the alleged wrongdoing was concealment and other non‑litigation conduct, so the litigation privilege did not strip subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether litigation privilege bars plaintiffs’ claims and thus deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction | Eberharts conspired to conceal the declaratory action and intentionally deprived lot owners of notice; claims rest on wrongful non‑litigation conduct, not protected statements | Litigation privilege provides absolute immunity for acts/communications in judicial proceedings, so plaintiffs’ claims are barred | Reversed: privilege did not apply because primary allegations concern intentional concealment and conduct outside the judicial proceeding, so court has jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on statements made during prior litigation | Plaintiffs say claims are about concealment and failure to notify, not on judicial statements | Defendants treated claims as arising from prior litigation statements/testimony and thus privileged | Court accepted plaintiffs’ characterization: allegations focus on conduct to prevent notice, not on pleadings or trial statements |
| Whether civil conspiracy claims survive if underlying torts are privileged | Plaintiffs: conspiracy stems from wrongful acts (failure to give notice, concealment) | Defendants: underlying torts (e.g., slander of title) are privileged, so conspiracy fails | Court: because underlying allegations are non‑privileged conduct, conspiracy may proceed; trial court erred to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds |
| Proper procedural vehicle: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction vs. motion to strike on merits | Plaintiffs: dismissal improper; evidentiary/merits defenses belong on motion to strike or later | Defendants: privilege extinguishes claims as a jurisdictional bar | Held: resolving privilege was premature on jurisdictional motion; merits defenses reserved for motions to strike or summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (litigation privilege protects statements made during judicial proceedings)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (Conn. 2013) (distinguishing immunity for statements from claims attacking improper use of the judicial system)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (absolute immunity applied to defamation arising from judicial proceedings)
- Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. App. 685 (Conn. App. 2016) (litigation privilege does not shield non‑statement conduct such as ex parte communications and bias at administrative hearings)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (Conn. 1991) (distinguishing liability for words used in litigation from liability for abusing the judicial process)