Spilke v. Wicklow
138 Conn. App. 251
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Georgina Spilke, self-represented, sued her former husband Kenneth Spilke and Ballard for vexatious litigation arising from a 2004 motion for contempt.
- Spilke’s contempt motion claimed his ex-wife violated a dissolution decree by a deficiency judgment action involving assets allegedly concealed by Spilke.
- Default for failing to plead was entered against Spilke and Ballard in March 2007; Wicklow and the law firm were later stricken.
- Plaintiff filed amended complaints and sought damages for vexatious litigation based on the contempt motion, culminating in a February 2011 damages hearing.
- Trial court found Ballard did not participate in filing the contempt motion, awarded nominal damages to Ballard and $10,001 non-economic damages plus treble damages to Spilke under § 52-568, totaling $30,003.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ballard’s participation in the contempt motion | Ballard materially participated in the contempt filing | Ballard had no role in filing the motion | Ballard did not participate in filing the motion |
| Proximate cause limited to contempt motion | Damages should cover all related vexatious activities | Damages limited to filing of contempt motion | Damages limited to consequences of the contempt motion |
| Damages against Ballard and amount | Ballard should be liable for greater damages | Nominal damages appropriate for Ballard; Spilke argues for more | Court did not abuse discretion; Ballard awarded nominal damages; Spilke awarded $10,001 non-economic damages and treble damages under § 52-568 |
| Denial to strike/open default on cross-appeal | Amendments did not extinguish default; strike/open default warranted | Amendments eliminated prejudice; default should be treated differently | Court did not abuse discretion; default not extinguished; no misapprehension in decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2008) (vexatious litigation damages; malice distinction between common law and statute)
- Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn. App. 719 (Conn. App. 2007) (pleading sufficiency; standard of review for damages after default)
- Gurguis v. Frankel, 93 Conn. App. 162 (Conn. App. 2006) (proximate cause; standard of review for findings of fact)
- Willamette Management Associates, Inc. v. Palczynski, 134 Conn. App. 58 (Conn. App. 2012) (amendment effects after default; prejudicial impact of amendments)
- Higgins v. Karp, 243 Conn. 495 (Conn. 1998) (setting aside default; discretionary review factors)