Golas Horvath v. Golas, No. Cv 99-0592809 S (Jul. 11, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Golas Horvath v. Golas, No. Cv 99-0592809 S (Jul. 11, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9427

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 11, 2001

DocketNo. CV 99-0592809 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9427 (Golas Horvath v. Golas, No. Cv 99-0592809 S (Jul. 11, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golas Horvath v. Golas, No. Cv 99-0592809 S (Jul. 11, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9427 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff moves to strike defendants Amended Counterclaim dated February 27, 2001 which alleged that the institution of action was "motivated by the improper purpose of unjustly vexing the defendants and constitutes an abuse or misuse of the litigation process". A counterclaim sounding in vexatious litigation and/or abuse of process may be brought only on termination of the action alleged to be vexatious. General Statutes § 33-726. Under Connecticut law, for sound public policy reasons, such a claim cannot be asserted in the same action allegedly causing the vexation. Zeller v. Consolini, 235 Conn. 417 (1995);Equality, Inc. v. I-Link Communications, 76 F. Sup.2d 227 (D. Conn. 1999).

Defendants rely on Swerdloff v. AEG Design/Build, Inc., 209 Conn. 185 (1988) for the proposition that they must be allowed to raise their claim in order to preserve the issue for later in the proceedings, but that case dealing with the special defense of violation of the Home Improvement Act offers no authority for their claim in this case.

Motion to Strike Counterclaim granted.

Wagner, JTR

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff moves to strike defendants Amended Counterclaim dated February 27, 2001 which alleged that the institution of action was "motivated by the improper purpose of unjustly vexing the defendants and constitutes an abuse or misuse of the litigation process". A counterclaim sounding in vexatious litigation and/or abuse of process may be brought only on termination of the action alleged to be vexatious. General Statutes § 33-726. Under Connecticut law, for sound public policy reasons, such a claim cannot be asserted in the same action allegedly causing the vexation. Zeller v. Consolini, 235 Conn. 417 (1995);Equality, Inc. v. I-Link Communications, 76 F. Sup.2d 227 (D. Conn. 1999).

Defendants rely on Swerdloff v. AEG Design/Build, Inc., 209 Conn. 185 (1988) for the proposition that they must be allowed to raise their claim in order to preserve the issue for later in the proceedings, but that case dealing with the special defense of violation of the Home Improvement Act offers no authority for their claim in this case.

Motion to Strike Counterclaim granted.

Wagner, JTR

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golas-horvath-v-golas-no-cv-99-0592809-s-jul-11-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack