Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Rendahl
154 A.3d 584
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs: Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. and Frank Peluso; Defendant: Joy M. Rendahl. Plaintiffs served as executor and attorneys for the estate of Frances Middleton Rendahl.
- Plaintiffs filed a second revised complaint alleging four tort claims based on defendant’s successful removal of Peluso as executor and reduction of plaintiffs’ fees.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking absolute litigation immunity for conduct occurring during probate/judicial proceedings.
- At the motion hearing plaintiffs conceded the alleged conduct arose from the probate matter. The trial court (Povodator, J.) granted the motion and dismissed all counts on absolute immunity grounds.
- Plaintiffs appealed; this court reviewed jurisdictional immunity de novo and affirmed dismissal, applying existing precedent to each cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has absolute litigation immunity for acts during probate proceedings | Rendahl is not entitled to absolute immunity; court should not apply or should abrogate such immunity | Defendant contends alleged torts arose from probate litigation and are barred by absolute immunity | Court held absolute litigation immunity applies; dismissed claims |
| Whether tortious interference with business/contract claims survive when arising from judicial proceedings | Interference claims are actionable despite arising from probate | Immunity bars tortious interference claims arising in judicial/quasi-judicial context | Dismissed under Rioux precedent |
| Whether tortious interference with estate administration is immune when occurring during judicial proceedings | Such interference should be actionable | Immunity applies where conduct is part of judicial/quasi-judicial process | Court extended Rioux reasoning and dismissed claim |
| Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred when tied to judicial proceedings | NIED claim should proceed despite immunity | Immunity bars NIED claims based on judicial conduct | Dismissed consistent with Perugini and Stone |
Key Cases Cited
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (2007) (establishes that absolute immunity bars tortious-interference claims arising from judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Perugini v. Giuliano, 148 Conn. App. 861 (2014) (holds absolute immunity bars negligent-infliction claims tied to judicial proceedings)
- DePietro v. Dept. of Public Safety, 126 Conn. App. 414 (2011) (explains appellate courts must follow Supreme Court precedent)
- Stone v. Pattis, 144 Conn. App. 79 (2013) (confirms absolute immunity bars negligent-infliction claims arising from judicial proceedings)