Rockwell v. Rockwell, 196 Conn.App. 763

In 2009 the defendant (Donate Rockwell) sued the plaintiff (James Rockwell) for breach of a 1994 investment agreement; she was represented by Attorney Ian A. Cole. A 2010 jury verdict favored the plaintiff.
In 2013 the plaintiff sued the defendant and Cole for vexatious litigation (seeking double/treble damages under § 52-568).
On May 12, 2015 the 2013 action was dismissed as to the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court thereafter bifurcated and decided probable cause as to Cole, finding probable cause on October 14, 2015; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
In April 2016 the plaintiff commenced a new vexatious litigation action against the defendant, invoking § 52-592 (accidental failure of suit) to save the claim.
The defendant moved (May 2016) to dismiss or for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the court denied that motion and later the defendant asserted res judicata/collateral estoppel as a special defense and moved for summary judgment on that defense.
The trial court denied summary judgment on res judicata/collateral estoppel; the defendant appealed the denial and also appealed the denial of her May 2016 motion (the latter portion of the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata/collateral estoppel bars the new vexatious-ligation claim	The 2013 proceeding decided whether Cole had probable cause based on his knowledge; the defendant’s knowledge may differ, so claim against her is distinct	The judgment in Cole’s favor precludes the plaintiff from relitigating the same vexatious-ligation claim against the defendant (privity with counsel)	Denied: genuine issues of material fact exist; the prior ruling addressed Cole’s knowledge, not what the defendant knew, so preclusion inapplicable
Whether the 2016 action is time-barred and § 52-592 does not save it	The new action is timely because it was commenced within one year after the dismissal of the 2013 action under § 52-592	The claim expired under the statute of limitations and § 52-592 does not apply	Not reviewed on appeal: denial of statute-of-limitations motion is not a final judgment and was not inextricably intertwined with the preclusion ruling; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Pollansky v. Pollansky, 162 Conn. App. 635 (Conn. App. 2016) (summary judgment standard; plenary review for preclusion issues)
Bernhard-Thomas Building Sys., LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2008) (elements of vexatious litigation; probable cause defined)
Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2013) (denial of statute-of-limitations defense is not an appealable final judgment; exception when issues are inextricably intertwined)
Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2010) (describing inextricably intertwined doctrine permitting interlocutory review when claims are closely linked)
Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 573 (Conn. App. 2017) (denial of summary judgment based on collateral estoppel/res judicata can constitute a final judgment for appeal)