Rockwell v. Rockwell
175 A.3d 1249
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 1994 James Rockwell (plaintiff) and Donate Rockwell (Donate) executed a written agreement: Donate invested $22,104.50 in securities managed by James; James guaranteed Donate would receive her initial investment (or make up the shortfall) upon liquidation, "taking into account all prior transactions involving the Investment."
- Prior to liquidation (2007) Donate received multiple distributions used to pay capital gains taxes; records reflected roughly $45,495 in such distributions; Donate testified she received $1,190.60 on liquidation and James later paid her $4,000.
- In 2009 Donate sued James for breach of the guarantee; central dispute: whether tax-related distributions counted as "prior transactions" that reduce her guaranteed recovery.
- The 2009 action proceeded to trial; the jury found for James and judgment entered for him.
- In 2013 James filed a vexatious litigation suit against Donate’s attorney Ian A. Cole, alleging Cole commenced the 2009 suit without probable cause and with malice. Cole sought bifurcation so the court would decide probable cause before malice/damages.
- Trial court initially denied bifurcation when jury was empaneled, but after repeated delays (largely caused by James) leading to discharge of the jury, the court granted bifurcation, held an evidentiary hearing, and found Cole had probable cause. James appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by bifurcating probable cause from malice/damages | Bifurcation improperly removed jury factfinding and advantaged defendant | Court has discretion; bifurcation promotes judicial economy and can avoid unnecessary litigation of malice/damages if probable cause resolves case | No abuse of discretion; bifurcation appropriate given delays and discharge of jury; resolving probable cause obviated other issues |
| Whether deciding probable cause by judge violated state constitutional right to jury trial (Art. I, §19) | Absolute right to jury determination of probable cause in vexatious litigation under state constitution | Probable cause is ultimately a question of law for the court; facts disputed may be submitted to jury but court decides sufficiency; Geisler factors not fully argued | Claim rejected: plaintiff failed to analyze Geisler factors and Connecticut precedent treats probable cause as a question of law for the court |
| Whether Cole lacked probable cause to commence the 2009 breach action | Cole objectively lacked reasonable grounds because evidence showed Donate had received distributions exceeding her investment | Cole had undisputed facts (subpoenaed records, Donate’s testimony/letters, representations in court filings) supporting a bona fide dispute over whether tax distributions counted as prior transactions | Court found undisputed facts supported an objectively reasonable belief in the breach claim; probable cause existed; judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Burden of proof in vexatious litigation action | Plaintiff bears burden to prove lack of probable cause | Same; defendant argues objective standard — reasonable attorney would have believed suit was warranted | Court applied objective probable-cause standard and found plaintiff failed to carry burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2007) (probable cause is a question of law and is an absolute defense in vexatious litigation)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (Conn. 1991) (when facts are disputed court may submit probable cause as mixed question, but sufficiency of facts is for the court)
- Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424 (Conn. 2003) (trial court has discretion to bifurcate issues for convenience, efficiency, and to avoid prejudice)
- Lichaj v. Sconyers, 163 Conn. App. 419 (Conn. App. 2016) (denial of summary judgment bears on probable cause analysis but does not automatically resolve it)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (Conn. 2001) (elements of breach of contract: agreement, performance, breach, damages)
- Brodrib v. Doberstein, 107 Conn. 294 (Conn. 1928) (existence of probable cause treated as question of law)
- Cosgrove Development Co. v. Cafferty, 179 Conn. 670 (Conn. 1980) (court may resolve probable cause when facts are undisputed)