Szekeres v. Szekeres
16 A.3d 713
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Szekeres and Miller resided at 39 Hillside Lane, Monroe, owned by Miller's mother Joyce Szekeres.
- Plaintiffs were served eviction; a stipulation stayed execution until February 1, 2000.
- Dridis (Stephanie and Chaker) and Joyce Szekeres allegedly damaged the Monroe home in February 2000 after entering and locking the Dridis’ claim of abandonment.
- Steven Szekeres was arrested in November 1999 for related threats; a no-contact order was issued between parties.
- Three cases were tried together: (AC 30337) forcible entry/lockout/ITU and CUTPA; (AC 30338) slander and emotional distress; (AC 30339) claims against Dridi/Dridi, including vexatious litigation counterclaims.
- Jury verdicts in 2008 favored the defendants on most counts; the court directed a verdict on CUTPA and later rulings occurred on counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for forcible entry/lockout and conversion | Evidence supports plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief. | Evidence supports abandonment and emergency entry; no conversion. | Verdicts supported by record; not against weight of evidence. |
| CUTPA directed verdict proper | Landlord-tenant conduct can trigger CUTPA. | Informal familial arrangement lacks nexus to public interest; not a trade practice. | Court properly directed verdict for defendants; no CUTPA violation. |
| Slander claim sufficiency | Statements to advocate and police were knowingly false or made with malice. | Statements were not knowingly false; possibly privileged unless malice proven. | Facts support weight of evidence; verdict not against weight. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dridi/Dridi | Dridis’ conduct was extreme and outrageous. | Conduct not outrageous; not beyond bounds of decency. | Directed verdict affirmed; no extreme and outrageous conduct found. |
| Vexatious litigation and malicious prosecution defenses | Dridis engaged in vexatious litigation for its own benefit. | There was no malice or improper termination; federal actions terminated in Dridis’ favor. | Jury verdicts for Dridis on vexatious litigation and counterclaims affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 279 Conn. 622 (2006) (sufficiency of evidence standard; appellate review deferential to jury)
- Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315 (2010) (CUTPA criteria under the cigarette rule)
- Muniz v. Kravis, 59 Conn.App. 704 (2000) (landlord-tenant relationship with CUTPA requires public-interest nexus)
- Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983) (CUTPA can apply to landlord-tenant conduct with public-policy implications)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (2007) (malice standard for qualified immunity in defamation)
- Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205 (2000) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (2010) (statutory theft is akin to larceny; evidence sufficiency necessary)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) (standard for favorable termination in vexatious litigation claims)