Background
Members of the Bongiorno family disputed ownership and management of several family businesses. In a 2012 action, Bridjay Capone and her mother, Marie Bongiorno, sued various individuals and entities, including J & G Realty, LLC, 305 West Avenue, LLC, and 24 Ardmore Street, LLC. Marie claimed interests arising from documents that purportedly assigned to her George Bongiorno’s ownership interests. The trial court dismissed Marie’s claims for lack of standing, finding that she had not established a personal or legal interest in the entities. The Appellate Court affirmed that dismissal, and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification.
Attorney Peter Lathouris, who entered the 2012 action while Marie’s appeal was pending, later pursued claims alleging that Marie held an economic interest in J & G Realty based on the same assignments. After the 2012 action ultimately ended adversely to Marie and Bridjay, the business entities brought this statutory vexatious-litigation action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lathouris on J & G Realty’s claim against him and for Bridjay on the plaintiffs’ claims against her. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Lathouris. Although the trial court recited the objective probable-cause standard, its analysis improperly relied on Lathouris’ subjective good-faith belief. Applying the correct test, the Appellate Court concluded that a reasonable attorney familiar with Connecticut law would not have believed there was probable cause, after the Supreme Court denied certification, to pursue Marie’s claimed economic interest in J & G Realty. The earlier standing decision had directly addressed the assignment on which that theory depended, and the later claim relied on the same facts and evidence.
The court also held that summary judgment for Bridjay was improper. Conflicting evidence created a genuine factual issue about whether she consulted attorney Richard S. Order before commencing the 2012 action. That dispute was material both to whether she had probable cause and to her advice-of-counsel defense.
The court reversed the judgments only as to J & G Realty’s claim against Lathouris in count twenty-one and the three plaintiffs’ claims against Bridjay in counts eleven through thirteen and sixteen through eighteen. It remanded with direction to deny summary judgment on those counts and for further proceedings, while affirming the judgments in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause in a vexatious-litigation action is assessed objectively; an attorney’s subjective good-faith belief does not control.
- A reasonable attorney lacked probable cause to pursue Marie’s economic-interest theory after appellate review concluded because that theory depended on an assignment already adjudicated ineffective.
- Conflicting evidence about whether Bridjay consulted counsel before suing prevented summary judgment on probable cause and the advice-of-counsel defense.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that lawyers and litigants may advance novel or ultimately unsuccessful claims, but their subjective confidence cannot establish probable cause when the governing facts and prior rulings would not support the claim objectively. It also illustrates that advice of counsel cannot support summary judgment when the record leaves disputed whether the consultation occurred before the challenged action began.
The ruling does not impose vexatious-litigation liability. It revives only the specified claims and returns them to the trial court for further proceedings.