164 Conn.App. 82
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Ruth Tyler established a trust naming her sons Jay M. Tyler and Bruce D. Tyler as beneficiaries and Richard Tatoian as trustee. After her death, the sons sued Tatoian alleging mismanagement (failure to diversify trust assets).
- In the first action Tatoian testified at deposition that he relied on an investment advisor; plaintiffs sought to compel him to pursue claims against the advisor under §45a-541i; the court denied that relief and the plaintiffs unsuccessfully pursued the advisor directly.
- At trial Tatoian testified he had not relied on the advisor; the jury returned a verdict for Tatoian.
- Plaintiffs then filed a second suit alleging fraud and CUTPA violations based on Tatoian’s inconsistent statements (deposition vs. trial) and other litigation‑related communications (a post‑filing letter threatening fee claims and seeking court approval of trust accountings).
- Tatoian moved to dismiss asserting the litigation privilege/absolute immunity for statements made during judicial proceedings; the trial court granted dismissal. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing their claims fall within the exception for improper use of the judicial system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute immunity (litigation privilege) bars a fraud claim based on statements made during prior litigation | Plaintiffs: Tatoian’s inconsistent sworn statements were fraudulent and constituted an abuse of the legal system, so the claim should survive (exception for improper use of courts) | Tatoian: Statements were made in the course of judicial proceedings and are absolutely privileged, barring fraud claims | Held: Dismissed—absolute immunity bars the fraud claim; fraud by a party-opponent during litigation is protected to preserve candor in judicial proceedings |
| Whether absolute immunity bars CUTPA claims premised on the same litigation communications (letter re: fees and seeking court approval of accountings) | Plaintiffs: CUTPA claims arise from communications and acts that abused the litigation process and are not protected | Tatoian: The letter and accountings were made/published in connection with the judicial proceeding and thus are privileged | Held: Dismissed—all CUTPA counts premised on litigation communications are barred by the litigation privilege; the MacDermid exception for improper use of process did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (2013) (litigation privilege extends to bar fraud claims against attorneys for statements made in judicial proceedings)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (2007) (framework for evaluating absolute immunity beyond defamation and recognition of exception for improper use of judicial process)
- Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821 (2007) (privilege covers statements pertinent to the controversy, including preparatory communications)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (2013) (clarifies limits of privilege and that exception for improper use of process must be applied contextually)
- Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (1986) (policy rationale: encourage candid participation in quasi‑judicial proceedings by protecting statements reasonably related to the proceeding)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (2007) (public policy balancing: privilege furthers candor in judicial process despite risk of occasional abuse)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) (noting alternative remedies like contempt, perjury charges, and civil actions for abuse of process or vexatious litigation)
- Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (1978) (attorney may be liable for unauthorized use of legal process causing special injury)
- Jucker v. Jucker, 190 Conn. 674 (1983) (judgments obtained by fraud may be opened)