Christian v. Iyer

221 Conn.App. 869

303 A.3d 604

John CHRISTIAN et al. v. Priya IYER et al.

AC 45350

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 7, 2023

Officially Released October 17, 2023

Brendan J. O'Rourke, New Canaan, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph M. Musco, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Thomas H. Houlihan, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Ashley A. Noel, for the appellees (defendants).

Prescott, Clark and Bear, Js. ^*

CLARK, J.

In this vexatious litigation action, the plaintiffs, John Christian and Susan Christian, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the defendants, Priya Iyer and Chandrasekhar Narayanaswami. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred (1) in concluding that the defendants established the defense of good faith reliance on advice of counsel because it failed to apply the correct legal standard or make the requisite findings, and (2) by failing to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel on the basis of a judgment in their favor in a prior trespass action brought against them by the defendants. We agree with the plaintiffs with respect to their first claim, but we disagree as to their second claim. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for a new trial.

The following facts, either found by the court or undisputed by the parties, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendants are the owners of property located at 83 Keelers Ridge Road in Wilton. The plaintiffs are the owners of an adjacent property, located at 97 Keelers Ridge Road. The plaintiffs’ residence is at a higher elevation and is situated to the southwest of the defendants’ residence. The plaintiffs’ residence affords sweeping views of Long Island Sound over the rear of the defendants’ property, a view that was at risk of being blocked if trees located on the defendants’ property were not trimmed. When the defendants purchased the property, they were made aware of the previous informal oral agreement between the prior owners and the plaintiffs that allowed the plaintiffs to trim certain trees on the defendants’ property in order to preserve their views. The defendants did not object to this agreement, and, from 2009 to 2011, the plaintiffs and the defendants communicated about trimming the trees on the defendants’ property. In 2011, however, that prior arrangement gave rise to a dispute that resulted in litigation between the parties.

On September 12, 2013, the defendants sued the plaintiffs, alleging that, in 2011, the plaintiffs had intentionally trespassed onto their property and cut down thirteen trees without the defendants’ consent (trespass action). At the time the defendants initiated the trespass action, they were represented by Attorney Anthony Piazza. In 2014, during the pendency of the trespass action, Attorney Matthew Mason was substituted as counsel for the defendants.

A bench trial was held over five days during June and July, 2016. Following the trial, the court, Lee, J ., issued a memorandum of decision dated February 6, 2017, finding in favor of the plaintiffs. ¹ The court concluded that the defendants could not prevail on their trespass claim because the plaintiffs had established their special defense of consent. Specifically, the court found that "Iyer gave her permission to [John] Christian to allow the cutting of the [pine trees located to the east of the plaintiffs’ pool and those along the southern border of the plaintiffs’ property] during their conversation on her property on September 15, 2011."

Subsequently, on April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs commenced the present vexatious litigation action against the defendants. In their operative complaint, the plaintiffs assert a common-law vexatious litigation claim and two statutory vexatious litigation claims pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568 (1) and (2). ² On August 8, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and a special defense, which claimed that they relied on the legal advice of counsel in prosecuting the trespass action. The defendants also brought three counterclaims against the plaintiffs sounding in vexatious litigation, but they ultimately withdrew those counterclaims.

Following a bench trial, ³ the court, Hon. Taggart D. Adams , judge trial referee, issued a memorandum of decision dated February 23, 2022, finding in favor of the defendants. In its memorandum of decision, the court did not determine whether the plaintiffs had established the elements of the vexatious litigation claims; instead, it analyzed only whether the defendants had established their special defense of advice of counsel. The court ultimately concluded that the defendants had established their advice of counsel defense, and, therefore, it rendered judgment for the defendants on all of the plaintiffs’ claims, reasoning that the defendants’ advice of counsel defense was a complete defense to those claims. In reaching its conclusion, the court found the following facts: "Attorney [Mason] represented [the defendants] throughout their controversy with [the plaintiffs]. [Attorney] Mason has been a well regarded member of the Connecticut bar for forty years, representing clients in a wide range of legal matters including all phases of litigation. He is a principal with the Wilton, Connecticut law firm of Gregory and Adams ....

"In October, 2011, [Attorney] Mason was asked to assist the defendants in this case ... in resolving issues with the [plaintiffs] over trees. ... At that time [Attorney] Mason had worked to mediate a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. In 2014, [Attorney] Mason took over representation of the defendants in their trespass action against the [plaintiffs] ... substituting for Attorney [Piazza]. Attorney Piazza had concluded [that] the defendants had a good faith basis to pursue a legal action against the [plaintiffs] and had undertaken the defendants’ representation until then.

"In connection with his assessment of the legal action, Attorney Mason reviewed Attorney Piazza's file and spoke with both defendants. ... [Attorney] Mason testified at the trial of this case in a credible fashion. In his trial testimony, he testified that he found [Iyer] to be credible and determined that she and her husband had a ‘viable’ trespass claim that ‘should be pursued.’ ...

"[Attorney] Mason further testified that he first learned in November, 2014, of a voicemail left by [Iyer] on [John] Christian's telephone on September 15, 2011. That voicemail is a major bone of contention in this case, and [John] Christian has characterized it as a ‘smoking gun’ in his favor. The voicemail referenced some workers who were ‘cutting down’ pine trees between Iyer's property on Keelers Ridge Road and the property of a neighbor, Al Nickel. [Iyer] has characterized her use of the phrase ‘cutting down’ as meaning reducing in size, not eliminating.

"In discussing the voicemail with Iyer, Attorney Mason understood that it could be interpreted to grant permission to the [plaintiffs] to remove some trees on her property. Nevertheless, [Attorney] Mason found [Iyer's] explanation that her meaning of cut down to mean ‘reduce in size or amount’ was ‘truthful’ and ‘reasonable.’ ... At the same time [Attorney] Mason was ‘absolutely’ aware that the voicemail could be interpreted otherwise. ... As described by the defendants’ counsel, Attorney Mason was aware of all the case's ‘warts.’ ... [Attorney] Mason further testified [that] he had ‘great difficulty understanding’ how the issue of tree removal could be resolved without agreement on a ‘whole host’ of other issues such as replacement trees, planting, tree height, ownership and maintenance. ... Attorney Mason further testified: ‘[The defendants] had opportunit[ies] to withdraw the case over a period of years, and whenever this issue would be raised by the [plaintiffs’] counsel we would discuss it and [Iyer] was adamant, and I found credible, that she had not given permission and needed to pursue the claim. ... A reason they were pursuing this claim was their need to establish control over the property line. They were convinced about the trees having been removed without permission, further request[s] by the [plaintiffs] ... to trim other trees, they were concerned about their property line not being respect[ed] ... and that was a significant part of their motivation and desire in pursuing ... the claim.’ [Attorney Mason was asked] ‘And if you believed that [the defendants] did not have a good faith basis to bring their trespass claim would you have continued to represent them?’ [He answered] ‘Absolutely not.’ ...

"As to whether [Iyer] gave consent for the [plaintiffs] to remove her trees, Attorney Mason testified: ‘I believe she did not give consent. I understand Judge Lee found differently, but I believe she did not give consent and that ... she had a good faith basis to pursue the claim.’ ...

"Attorney Mason further testified [that] he had yet to have a case where there was not ‘good’ evidence and ‘bad’ evidence for his clients and that he expected the voicemail would be used for the [plaintiffs’] ‘benefit.’ " (Citations omitted.)

Ultimately, the court found that "the evidence of Attorney Mason and his actions in connection with his representation of the defendants, and the defendants’ actions in accepting and relying on the advice and counsel of Attorney Mason in pursuing their lawsuit, have met the burden of proof the law imposes on the defendants in order to be successful in proving by a preponderance of the evidence their special defense of good faith reliance on advice of counsel." This appeal followed.

On May 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for articulation, which the trial court issued on September 12, 2022. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The plaintiffs first claim that the court erred in concluding that the defendants...