Morrison Mahoney Partners Patrick Day and Peter Sabellico recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of an attorney in a vexatious litigation action brought in the Connecticut Superior Court.
The case arose out of a complex underlying financial and business dispute between family members. The dispute surrounded the handling of family-owned company’s finances and income. A parallel criminal matter was also pending based upon similar allegations. In the underlying action, our client asserted an action against both the former employee and her husband for, among other things, statutory theft and conversion. The case went to trial, but the case against the husband failed at the directed verdict stage, the Court finding that there was insufficient evidence that the husband had “actual knowledge” of the alleged theft.
In the subsequent vexatious litigation case brought by the husband, abuse of process claims were stricken based on the fact that the husband failed to allege specific misconduct intended to cause injury outside the normal contemplation of private litigation. Thereafter, following several depositions, Pat and Peter prepared a motion for summary judgment arguing that, based upon the facts “known or apparent” to our client, and given the disparity between the couples’ stated income on their tax returns and their standard of living, the reasonable attorney could pursue statutory theft and conversion claims against the husband based upon circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences.
Pat and Peter argued that our client was entitled to rely on all evidence and reasonable inferences a factfinder could draw, including an expert’s forensic accounting report, the fact that taxes had been paid on the husband’s property for years, other dues, fees and personal expense of the husband were paid, and the fact that sums exceeding six figures were flowing into the family during the time the employee worked at the business. After consideration, the court sided with Pat and Peter, finding that sufficient probable cause existed for the client to bring the underlying claims against the husband and granted summary judgment.
