author: LAVERY, C. J.

text:
    PATRICK J. MCMANUS ET AL. v. LINDA D. ROGGI
    (AC 21035)
    Lavery, C. J., and West and Stoughton, Js.

      Argued March 31
    officially released July 29, 2003

      Mark W. Dietz, for the appellant (defendant).

      Dwight D. Weed, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Opinion

LAVERY, C. J.

The defendant, Linda D. Roggi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiffs, Patrick J. McManus and Kathleen M. McManus. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly found that (1) the plaintiffs had obtained a prescriptive easement over the paved area located between the houses of the parties, (2) the paved area was a part of Owens Lane in Glastonbury, (3) the plaintiffs did not abandon a portion of the existing express right-of-way, (4) the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiffs the right to cross a portion of an earthen dam and bridge located on the defendant’s property, and (5) the defendant was not entitled to nominal damages for the plaintiffs’ trespass. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

The court found the following facts. The plaintiffs and the defendant own adjoining pieces of property in Glastonbury. The defendant acquired title to property known as 79 Owens Lane by warranty deed, dated March 29, 1994, from Jose R. Lujambio and Katherine Lujambio. The Lujambios had obtained title to the property from Walter J. Traskos and Frances M. Traskos.

The plaintiffs own property known as 80 Owens Lane. The plaintiffs obtained title to that property on December 9, 1994, by a warranty deed from Harriet Beech. Beech had obtained title to the property on May 15, 1979, from Clifford W. Wood and Judith Ann Wood. The Woods took title by a warranty deed dated June 10,1968, in fee simple. On November 5,1968, the Woods obtained an easement and a right-of-way, by means of a quitclaim deed, from the Traskoses. Additionally, the Woods received, on May 15,1979, a warranty deed from Walter Traskos that included a twenty foot right-of-way. That right-of-way was for the purpose of ingress and egress from Owens Lane to the plaintiffs’ property.

Owens Lane connects the properties with Hebron Avenue and is approximately two-tenths of a mile long. Owens Lane intersects the north border of the defendant’s property. At the beginning of that intersection is a paved area between the parties’ homes, part of which is the location of the twenty foot right-of-way.

After the plaintiffs moved into their residence in early 1995, the parties enjoyed a friendly relationship. Kathleen McManus rented a horse stall in the defendant’s bam. Furthermore, the plaintiffs requested and obtained permission from the defendant to expand a dam and bridge further onto the defendant’s property.

In 1998, the relationship between the parties began to deteriorate. The defendant took in additional horse boarders and, in a letter dated March 1,1999, terminated the boarding agreement with Kathleen McManus and requested that she remove all of her personal property as of April 1, 1999. In a letter dated March 15, 1999, the defendant informed Patrick McManus of several instances in which she claimed that he had acted in an inappropriate manner, including accusations of sexual harassment. In August, 1999, the defendant filed apolice report, claiming that Kathleen McManus had trespassed on her land for ten to fifteen minutes.

In June, 1999, the defendant began to complain about the plaintiffs’ use of the paved area. Previously, she had never attempted to restrict the plaintiffs’ use of the paved area to the twenty foot right-of-way. The defendant began to obstruct the plaintiffs’ use of the paved area by installing fencing and leaving parked vehicles to prevent use outside of the twenty foot right-of-way. As a result of those actions, delivery vehicles stopped service to the plaintiffs, and the town ceased plowing the area.

On September 13, 1999, the plaintiffs initiated an action by serving a five count complaint on the defendant. The plaintiffs sought to obtain an injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering with their prescriptive easement that included the entire paved area. The defendant responded by filing an answer, special defenses and a four count counterclaim. The court issued a memorandum of decision on April 14, 2000, which addressed only the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction. The court granted the plaintiffs “full and unfettered use of all the paved area in question, including but not limited to town of Glastonbury maintenance and plowing, and the use by vehicles making deliveries and any necessary parking to unload same.” In a memorandum of decision issued on June 21, 2000, the court adopted all of its previous factual findings and legal conclusions, rendered a permanent injunction and awarded the plaintiffs $200 in damages. Furthermore, with respect to the defendant’s counterclaim, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.

The defendant timely filed a motion for articulation, requesting that the court (1) define the scope of the plaintiffs’ easement, (2) determine whether the paved area located between parties’ houses was a part of Owens Lane and (3) explain the nature of the damages award. The court granted the motion and issued its articulation. The court stated that the easement was a right-of-way for travel and that the previous memorandum of decision had set forth the scope of the easement, the paved portion located between the homes was a part of the town road and that damages were awarded for the unnecessary interference with the plaintiffs’ use of their rights. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiffs had obtained a prescriptive easement over the paved area between the homes of the parties. Specifically, the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the use of the easement was continuous and uninterrupted under a claim of right. We disagree.

At the outset, we set forth the legal principles and standard of review necessary for the resolution of the defendant’s appeal. We begin our analysis of the issue by setting forth the requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement. General Statutes § 47-37 concerns the acquisition of easements by adverse use or prescription. Section 47-37 provides: “No person may acquire a right-of-way or any other easement from, in, upon or over the land of another, by the adverse use or enjoyment thereof, unless the use has been continued uninterrupted for fifteen years.” “In applying that section, this court repeatedly has explained that [a] party claiming to have acquired an easement by prescription must demonstrate that the use [of the property] has been open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years and made under a claim of right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 576-77, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002).

“Whether a right of way by prescription has been acquired presents primarily a question of fact for the trier after the nature and character of the use and the surrounding circumstances have been considered. . . . When the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged, the reviewing court must determine whether the facts are supported by the evidence or whether they are clearly erroneous. ... In such cases, the trier’s determination of fact will be disturbed only in the clearest of circumstances, where its conclusion could not reasonably be reached.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hoffman Fuel Co. of Danbury v. Elliott, 68 Conn. App. 272, 275-76, 789 A.2d 1149, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 918, 797 A.2d 514 (2002).

Finally, we note that although the court found clear and convincing evidence of a prescriptive easement in favor of the plaintiff, such a high evidentiary hurdle is not required. Our Supreme Court has stated that “with respect to a claim to a prescriptive easement, [a]ll that is required is a showing by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the use was adverse.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schulz v. Syvertsen, 219 Conn. 81, 91, 591 A.2d 804 (1991); see also Hoffman Fuel Co. of Danbury v. Elliott, supra, 68 Conn. App. 277. With the foregoing principles in mind, we now address the merits of the defendant’s argument.

A

The defendant argues that the plaintiffs failed to offer evidence of a continuous and uninterrupted use under a claim of right for the necessary fifteen year period. Specifically, the defendant claims that Kathleen McManus testified that she believed that she could use the entire paved area; however, the plaintiffs lived at the property only since 1994. Clifford Wood, who owned the property until 1979, testified that he believed he could use the entire area. Harriet Beech, however, the owner from 1979 until 1994, did not testify. Thus, the defendant argues that there was no evidence that Beech had used the entire area without permission, express or implied, from either the defendant or her predecessors in title for the required time period.

“A use made under a claim of right is a use made without recognition of the rights of the owner of the servient tenement. . . . The use must occur without license or permission and must be unaccompanied by a recognition of [the right of the owner of the servient tenement] to stop such use.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hoffman Fuel Co. of Danbury v. Elliott, supra, 68 Conn. App. 279. “The claim of right requirement serves to ensure that permissive uses will not ripen into easements by prescription by requiring that the disputed use be adverse to the rights of the owner of the servient tenement. 4 R. Powell, Real Property (1997) § 34-10, pp. 34-111 through 34-133.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Tomas, 66 Conn. App. 146, 159, 783 A.2d 1226 (2001).

In Lisiewski v. Seidel, 72 Conn. App. 861, 806 A.2d 1121, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 921, 922, 812 A.2d 865 (2002), we stated that it “was not . . . the plaintiffs burden to establish that his use of the property was without permission. Such a rule would often charge a party with proving a negative. Rather, it was the plaintiffs burden to establish that his use of the property was under a claim of right. . . . This is not to say, however, that evidence indicating a lack of permission is irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has established use under a claim of right.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 873.

Kathleen McManus testified that she never asked for permission to use the paved area. John Casella, who lived on the adjacent property for more than sixty years, testified that there was never any intention to limit access to the paved area to 80 Owens Lane. Furthermore, he stated that the Beeches made total use of the area, as did the plaintiffs. Clifford Wood, a previous owner of the plaintiffs’ property, also testified that he was familiar with the history of those pieces of property and that there was never any restriction on the type of vehicles that could use the paved area. He also stated that he had never asked for or received permission to use the area.

On the basis of the foregoing, we are not left with the firm impression that the court’s finding was clearly erroneous. We have considered the character of the use of the paved area, as well as the surrounding circumstances; see id., 874; and conclude that it was not clearly erroneous for the court to conclude that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement.

B

The defendant also argues that the court’s finding that the paved area is part of Owens Lane is inconsistent with the finding of a prescriptive easement. Specifically, the defendant claims that a private right-of-way cannot be acquired by prescription over land subject to use as a public highway. At the outset, we reiterate that according to the town code of ordinances, Owens Lane is a private road subject to maintenance provided by the town. Furthermore, there was no evidence that members of the public used Owens Lane or the paved area on a regular basis. At oral argument, the defendant conceded that only the plaintiffs, the defendant and the defendant’s tenants used Owens Lane on a regular basis.

In Gioielli v. Mallard Cove Condominium Assn., Inc., 37 Conn. App. 822, 658 A.2d 134 (1995), we stated: “Where the use of a right-of-way is in common with the public, the common use is considered to negate a presumption of grant to any individual use. In such a case, the individual user must, in order to establish an independent prescriptive right, perform some act of which the servient owner is aware and which clearly indicates his individual claim of right. . . . Whether the requirements for such a right have been met in a particular case presents a question for the trier of facts after the nature and character of the use and the surrounding circumstances have been considered. ... A finding that the use made by the claimant and his predecessors in title was not different from that made by the general public is fatal to the establishment of any prescriptive right in the claimant.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 829-30.

In the present case, there was evidence that the plaintiffs had used the paved area in a manner different and distinct from that of the general public; the paved area was used for ingress and egress to the properties, and primarily was used only by the plaintiffs, the defendant and the tenants who lived on the defendant’s property. That use was not in common with that of the public. The court’s finding that the paved area was part of Owens Lane is not inconsistent with the finding of a prescriptive easement in favor of the plaintiffs.

II

The defendant next claims that the court improperly found that the paved area was a part of Owens Lane. The defendant has failed, however, to provide us with any analysis of why that finding, if improper, is relevant to the appeal. Thus, it is unclear as to how the defendant is aggrieved by that challenged finding. Our Supreme Court has stated: “[Pjroof of aggrievement is ... an essential prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction .... [Tjhe party claiming aggrievement must successfully establish that the specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decision.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Seymour v. Seymour, 262 Conn. 107, 110, 809 A.2d 1114 (2002). In the present case, however, the defendant failed to establish why the finding, if improper, has caused her injury. We will, therefore, not review that claim.

III

The defendant next claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiffs had not abandoned a portion of the express right-of-way. Specifically, the defendant argues that the right-of-way, at some point, was extended in the deeds beyond the paved area and that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors have utilized the right-of-way beyond the paved area. We are not persuaded.

“Whether there has been an abandonment is a question of intention to be determined from all the surrounding circumstances, and is a question of fact and not of law. The proof must clearly indicate that it was the intention of the owner of the dominant estate to abandon the easement. . . . [Abandonment] implies a voluntary and intentional renunciation, but the intent may be inferred as a fact from the surrounding circumstances. . . . Although, before legal abandonment can be found, there must be proof of an intent to abandon . . . that requirement can be met without resort to proof of specific intent. Most frequently, where abandonment has been held established, there has been found present some affirmative act indicative of an intention to abandon . . . but nonuser, as of an easement, or other negative or passive conduct may be sufficient to signify the requisite intention and justify a conclusion of abandonment. The weight and effect of such conduct depends not only upon its duration but also upon its character and the accompanying circumstances.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Friedman v. Westport, 50 Conn. App. 209, 212-13, 717 A.2d 797, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 937, 722 A.2d 1216 (1998). Our Supreme Court has stated that there must be clear proof of intent to abandon an easement. Byard v. Hoelscher, 112 Conn. 5, 16, 151 A. 351 (1930); Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93, 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. G. C. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662, 142 A. 301 (1928).

The defendant points out that Kathleen McManus testified that she did not use the portion of the right-of-way south of the paved area. Furthermore, the predecessors to the plaintiffs’ title did not use that area. The defendant also notes that the plaintiffs have never complained about the oil tank, stone wall, deck or bushes located in that area that would interfere with the right-of-way.

In its initial memorandum of decision, filed April 14, 2000, the court expressly found that the there was no abandonment. In the subsequent memorandum of decision, dated June 21, 2000, the court stated that it had adopted all of its factual findings and legal conclusions from the April 14, 2000 decision. The defendant filed a motion for articulation; however, she never requested that the court articulate the reasons that it found that the plaintiffs had not abandoned any portion of the easement.

We have stated that “[i]t is incumbent upon the appellant to take the necessary steps to sustain its burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review. Practice Book § 4061 [now § 60-5]; Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155, [164-65], 612 A.2d 1153 (1992). Indeed, several rules of practice aim to facilitate the process by which an appealing party ensures the adequacy of the record. See Practice Book § 4051 [now § 66-5] (Rectification of Appeal, Articulation), § 4053 [now § 66-6] (Motion for Review — In General), § 4054 [now § 66-7] (Motion for Review — Review of Motion for Rectification of Appeal or Articulation). These rules foster the basic policy that an appellate tribunal cannot render a decision without first fully understanding the disposition being appealed. . . . Our role is not to guess at possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by a trial court. . . . Without the necessary factual and legal conclusions furnished by the trial court . . . any decision made by us respecting [the defendant’s claims] would be entirely speculative.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gladstone, Schwartz, Baroff & Blum v. Hovhannissian, 53 Conn. App. 122, 127, 728 A.2d 1140 (1999).

The defendant states that the court, during the hearing on the motion for articulation noted that it might have made a mistake with respect to the issue of abandonment of the right-of-way beyond the paved area. The court stated that “the lack of use would seem to indicate [abandonment] . . . .” The defendant filed a motion to correct the possible error. The court, however, in its articulation, did not address the issue of abandonment. The court also never acted on the defendant’s motion to correct. The defendant subsequently failed to file a motion for review of the articulation. See Practice Book § 66-7.

Despite the comments made during the hearing, we are thus left with the factual finding that the plaintiffs did not abandon any part of the right-of-way. The burden was on the defendant to prove abandonment because she alleged it as a special defense. On appeal, the burden was on the defendant to provide this court with a complete factual record. The defendant failed to do so.

IV

The defendant next claims that the court improperly found that she was estopped from denying the plaintiffs the right to cross a portion of the bridge located on her property. Specifically, the defendant argues that the renovations to the bridge, located on top of the dam, substantially encroached on her property and that she never granted the plaintiffs the right to travel across her property. We disagree.

“The defense of estoppel must be supported by proof of two essential elements: (1) the party against whom estoppel is claimed must be shown to have done or said something calculated or intended to induce another party to believe that certain facts exist and to act on that belief; and (2) the other party must be shown to have changed its position in reliance on those facts, thereby incurring some injury. . . . An estoppel is predicated on proof of misleading conduct resulting in prejudice to the other party. . . . The party claiming estoppel has the burden of proof, and whether it has met that burden of proof in a particular case is an issue of fact. . . . We therefore review the corut’s finding under the clearly erroneous standard.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ridgefield v. Eppoliti Realty Co., 71 Conn. App. 321, 337, 801 A.2d 902, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 933, 806 A.2d 1070 (2002).

In the present case, the plaintiffs informed the defendant that they wanted to rebuild the dam and bridge. Their plan indicated that the new bridge would encroach on the defendant’s property, and the defendant consented to that proposal. The plaintiffs bore the entire cost of the construction. The defendant never voiced any objection to the construction or encroachment onto her land. All the parties used the bridge on a regular basis for a period of time.

On June 13, 1999, the defendant placed wooden stakes on the property line as it crossed the bridge and prevented the plaintiffs from driving vehicles across the bridge. Those stakes were replaced by a fence, making use of the bridge difficult for the plaintiffs.

The court found that the defendant was estopped from preventing the plaintiffs from crossing the bridge. The court noted that the defendant consented to the renovation of the bridge and dam, observed the layout and construction, and failed to object or to complain about the plaintiffs’ use of the bridge until the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Moreover, Kathleen McManus testified that if the defendant had objected to the encroachment onto her property, the bridge and dam could have been constructed entirely on the plaintiffs’ property.

There was evidence before the court that the plaintiffs relied on the conduct and statements of the defendant with respect to the construction of the bridge and dam. Furthermore, there was evidence that the plaintiffs, on the basis of the statements and conduct of the defendant, had changed their position as to where to build the improved bridge and dam. We conclude, therefore, that it was not clearly erroneous for the court to find that the defendant was estopped from preventing the plaintiffs from using the bridge.

V

Finally, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to award damages for the trespass committed by the plaintiffs. Although we agree that the defendant was entitled to judgment and nominal damages for the admitted trespass, we adhere to the general rule that we will not grant a new trial for the failure to award such damages.

The defendant set up a videocamera surveillance system and no trespassing signs. On August 28,1999, Kathleen McManus was recorded on the tape as being on the defendant’s property. The defendant filed a police report and, during the investigation, Kathleen McManus provided a one sentence affidavit admitting that she was on the defendant’s property. Patrick McManus also testified that he had driven on the defendant’s driveway without permission. Despite that evidence, the court found no injury and declined to award damages.

In Melfi v. Danbury, 70 Conn. App. 679, 800 A.2d 582, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 922, 806 A.2d 1061 (2002), we addressed the issue of the failure to award nominal damages. “It was improper for the [trial] court to fail to award damages to the plaintiffs. Because liability already had been conclusively established . . . the plaintiffs, at the very least, were entitled to nominal damages. Although technically incorrect, the failure to award damages does not require a remand. [N]o purpose would be furthered by a remand because the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants could only be nominal based upon the substantive findings of the trial court .... We will not ordinarily remand a case for the mere failure to award nominal damages.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 691-92; see also Rubin v. Rios, 186 Conn. 754, 756, 443 A.2d 1273 (1982). Although appellate courts ordinarily will not remand a case for the failure to award nominal damages, they have not hesitated in such circumstances simply to direct the trial court to render judgment for the prevailing party for $1 in nominal damages. See, e.g., Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 218 Conn. 474, 479, 590 A.2d 431 (1991); Kelly v. Ivler, 187 Conn. 31, 39, 450 A.2d 817 (1982); Macklin v. Macklin, 186 Conn. 185, 191, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982).

The judgment is reversed only as to the counterclaim alleging trespass and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment in favor of the defendant and to award nominal damages with respect to the trespass claim. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Clifford Wood testified that he had obtained the property from his wife’s parents, Walter Traskos and Frances Traskos, and that the town would not grant a building permit to construct the house at 80 Owens Lane without the easement.

       The right-of-way is approximately 215 feet long and twenty feet wide.

       Pursuant to article III, § 17-32, of the Glastonbury Code of Ordinances, Owens Lane is a private road approved for maintenance to be performed by the department of public works. Such maintenance includes snow plowing and ice sanding, sweeping, surface patching, oiling and incidental sanding, and the installation and maintenance of any official traffic control device or street sign that is approved. Glastonbury Code of Ordinances, art. Ill, § 17-33. Additional surfaces may be provided in the interest of public safety. Id.

       The paved area is thirty-two feet wide at the start of the defendant’s property and expands to thirty-seven feet.

       The first count of the counterclaim sounded in trespass. Count two alleged that the plaintiffs, in modifying the dam, created a nuisance on the defendant’s property. Counts three and four alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respectively, on the basis of the conduct of Patrick McManus.

       “An easement is a property right in a person or group of persons to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property right in the owner of the land. ... 3. Cribbet, Property Law (1962), p. 16. ... An easement is always distinct from the right to occupy and enjoy the land itself. It gives no title to the land, on which, it is imposed ....
      “An easement is neither an estate in land nor the land itself. It is, however, property or an interest in land. Thus, an easement is real property. It is an incorporeal right or hereditament to which property is rendered subject. ... 25 Am. Jur. 2d 570-71, Easements and Licenses § 2 (1996). This court has implicitly recognized that a property owner retains an interest in fee regardless of the fact that the property is burdened by an easement.” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Tomas, 66 Conn. App. 146, 153, 783 A.2d 1226 (2001).

       The court improperly stated that the plaintiffs were required to prove the elements of a prescriptive easement under the clear and convincing standard. As authority, it cited the case of Barrs v. Zukowski, 148 Conn. 158, 165-66, 169 A.2d 23 (1961). Barrs, an adverse possession case, does not apply to the facts of the present case.

       “The court cannot find at this time that the plaintiffs have abandoned any part of their rights in the easement, their rights in the paved area or their use of Owens Lane as extended.”

       “The court now adopts all of its findings of fact and legal rulings to apply to the request for a permanent injunction.”

       Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: “Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the [appellate] court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper. . . .”

       The defendant had an express easement providing her ingress and egress over the bridge.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SCHALLER, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    FARHAD MOASSER v. JAMES A. BECKER ET AL.
    (AC 22819)
    Schaller, Flynn and Dupont, Js.

      Argued February 21
    officially released July 29, 2003

      Brenden P. Leydon, with whom, on the brief, were Mark F. Katz and Susan F. DFlia, for the appellant (defendant Judith Becker).

      Philip M. French, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

SCHALLER, J.

In this action to foreclose three judgment liens, the defendant Judith Becker appeals from the trial court’s judgment of foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied her motions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) precluded her from relitigating an issue that had been litigated before she became a party to the action and (3) accepted an attorney trial referee’s finding that the defendant had violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff, Farhad Moasser, commenced an action against the defendant’s former husband, James A. Becker, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging fraud. The plaintiff ultimately obtained judgments against James Becker in 1988 and 1989. At that time, James Becker was married to the defendant, and they were joint tenants of a residence (property) located in Stamford. The plaintiff obtained three judgment liens on James Becker’s interest in the property, all of which were recorded in the Stamford land records. In 1992, the plaintiff commenced the present action in the Superior Court, seeking to foreclose the three judgment liens. Additional facts are set forth as necessary for the resolution of the defendant’s claims.

I

We first consider the defendant’s claim that the court improperly denied her motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to register the underlying federal District Court judgment as a state court judgment pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), General Statutes § 52-604 et seq. We are not persuaded.

The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant’s claim. The plaintiff brought this action to foreclose the three judgment hens he obtained as a result of his previous action against James Becker in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The present case was tried before attorney trial referee Alfred H. Hoddinott, Jr., in December, 2000, and January, 2001. At trial, the plaintiff introduced certified copies of the certificates of the three judgment hens. The plaintiff did not present any evidence showing that the underlying District Court judgments had been made judgments of the Connecticut Superior Court pursuant to the provisions of the UEFJA.

On January 16, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff did not have an enforceable Connecticut Superior Court judgment. The plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss in which he advanced several distinct grounds for denial of the motion to dismiss. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss without a memorandum of decision on March 26,2001. The defendant did not request an articulation of the court’s reasoning in denying the motion.

In her trial brief submitted to Hoddinott on February 6, 2001, the defendant again challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff did not have an enforceable Superior Court judgment. In his June 11, 2001 report, Hoddinott noted that the issue was controlled by the court’s March 26, 2001 denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Hoddinott further stated that he saw no reason to revisit that ruling. On August 15, 2001, the defendant filed objections to acceptance of Hoddinott’s report, in which she objected to Hoddinott’s failure to revisit the issue of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the referee’s report on January 14, 2002.

On February 1, 2002, the defendant filed another motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he had an enforceable Connecticut Superior Court judgment. The court denied the motion to dismiss on May 16, 2002, indicating in a handwritten notation that “[t]he claim of lack of an enforceable judgment was previously rejected in the memorandum of decision of January 14, 2002.”

We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable standard of review. “A determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 485, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003).

Before proceeding to address the merits of the defendant’s claim, we must determine whether the record is adequate for us to review the court’s rulings. Although the court did not articulate its reasoning for denying the defendant’s motions to dismiss, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not register his judgment pursuant to the UEFJA. The plaintiffs failure to register the judgment pursuant to the UEFJA was the sole basis for the defendant’s motions to dismiss. Consequently, the defendant’s motions to dismiss presented a single pure question of law, namely, whether a judgment of an instate federal court must be registered pursuant to the UEFJA as a jurisdictional prerequisite to commencing an action in state court to foreclose the federal judgment lien. Under such circumstances, the lack of an articulation by the trial court of its precise reasoning for denying the motions to dismiss is not fatal to the defendant’s claim. Cf. Niehaus v. Cowles Business Media, Inc., 263 Conn. 178, 184-85, 819 A.2d 765 (2003).

We now turn to the merits of the defendant’s claim. The defendant argues that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to register the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut as a state court judgment pursuant to the UEFJA. Whether the UEFJA requires a judgment creditor to register in the Superior Court an in-state federal judgment lien presents a question of statutory construction.

“The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279, 290, 819 A.2d 260 (2003).

We begin with the language of the UEFJA. General Statutes § 52-605 (a) provides: “A judgment creditor shall file, with a certified copy of a foreign judgment, in the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, that it is unsatisfied in whole or in part, the amount remaining unpaid and that the enforcement of such judgment has not been stayed and setting forth the name and last-known address of the judgment debtor.” General Statutes § 52-605 (b) provides: “Such foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying as a judgment of a court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.” “Foreign judgment” is defined in General Statutes § 52-604 as “any judgment, decree or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state, except one obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment.”

It is not clear from reading those provisions whether the legislature intended to require the registration of an in-state federal judgment as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of an action to foreclose a hen arising from the judgment. Case law, however, provides some useful guidance as to the meaning of the statutory language. Our courts have concluded, despite the language of § 52-605 (a) providing that a foreign judgment creditor “shall file” a foreign judgment in the court in which enforcement is sought, that the provisions of the ÚEFJA are not exclusive, and a judgment creditor still may seek recognition of a foreign judgment by way of a common-law action on the judgment. See Tri-State Tank Corp. v. Higganum Heating, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 798, 802, 699 A.2d 201 (1997); Seaboard Surety Co. v. Waterbury, 38 Conn. Sup. 468, 470, 451 A.2d 291 (1982). Those authorities are not directly on point because they are based on the specific statement in General Statutes § 52-607 that “[t]he right of a judgment creditor to proceed by an action on the judgment . . . remains unimpaired.” They are instructive, however, because they suggest that even in the case of a judgment clearly falling within the statutory definition of “foreign judgment,” the provisions of the UEFJA do not establish a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to recognition of the judgment by our courts.

The legislative policy behind the UEFJA is also instructive. The purpose of the uniform act is set forth in the drafters’ prefatory note: “Court congestion is a problem common to all states. Overcrowded dockets, overworked judges and court officials, with attendant delays, inevitably tend to lower standards for the administration of justice. One of the things that contributes to calendar congestion is the Federal necessity of giving full faith and credit to the judgments of courts of other states. . . . While there is no constitutional requirement that a debtor who has had a full due process trial in one state need be given a second full scale trial on the judgment in another state, this is the only course available to creditors. The usual practice requires that an action be commenced on the foreign judgment. The full procedural requirements apply to the second action.” Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (1964), Prefatory Note, 13-1 U.L.A. 156.

The drafters further stated: “This . . . revision of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act adopts the practice which, in substance, is used in Federal courts. It provides the enacting state with a speedy and economical method of doing that which it is required to do by the Constitution of the United States. It also relieves creditors and debtors of the additional cost and harassment of further litigation which would otherwise be incident to the enforcement of the foreign judgment.” Id., 157. Thus, the UEFJA was intended to provide foreign judgment creditors with a speedy, inexpensive and efficient method for enforcing foreign judgments; it was not intended to limit the availability of existing remedies available to judgment creditors.

Finally, we examine the legislative history of the UEFJA and its relationship to existing federal and state legislation governing judgment liens. When our legislature enacted the UEFJA in 1973; see Public Acts 1973, No. 73-498; there was already federal precedent governing federal judgment hens. Traditionally, a federal court judgment constituted a lien on all of the judgment debt- or’s real property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See Massingill v. Downs, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 760, 766, 12 L. Ed. 903 (1849). Section 1962 of title 28 of the United States Code, which modifies that rule, provides in relevant part: “Every judgment rendered by a district court within a State shall be a lien on the property located in such State in the same manner, to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in such State, and shall cease to be a lien in the same manner and time. . . . Whenever the law of any State requires a judgment of a State court to be registered, recorded, docketed or indexed, or any other act to be done, in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish before such lien attaches, such requirements shall apply only if the law of such State authorizes the judgment of a court of the United States to be registered, recorded, docketed, indexed or otherwise conformed to rules and requirements relating to judgments of the courts of the State.”

The United States Supreme Court construed what is now 28 U.S.C. § 1962 in Rhea v. Smith, 274 U.S. 434, 47 S. Ct. 698, 71 L. Ed. 1139 (1927). That case concerned Missouri’s statutory scheme governing judgment liens. Pursuant to the Missouri statute, a Missouri state trial court judgment automatically became a lien on the judgment debtor’s property located in the county in which the court sat. Id., 441. Under the same statute, however, a judgment of a federal court located in Missouri did not become a lien until the judgment creditor filed a transcript of the judgment in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Id.

The United States Supreme Court held that litigants who obtained judgments in federal court in Missouri were not required to follow the filing procedures prescribed by the Missouri statute. The court explained: “It is clear that Congress by [passing the predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 1962] intended to change and limit the existing rule, as stated ... in Massingill v. [Downs], supra, [48 U.S. 760] that federal court judgments were a lien upon lands throughout the territorial jurisdictions of the respective federal courts, but intended to do this only in those States which passed laws making the conditions of creation, scope and territorial application of the liens of federal court judgments the same as state court judgments, so that where any State has not passed such laws, the rule that federal judgments are liens throughout the territorial jurisdiction of such courts must still be in force.” Rhea v. Smith, supra, 274 U.S. 441. The court concluded that because the Missouri statute failed to provide the conformity required by the federal statute, a federal judgment rendered in the state of Missouri automatically became a lien on all of the judgment debtor’s real property throughout the state. Id., 444-45.

An examination of our own statutes reveals a legislative intent to achieve the conformity necessary to make the procedures for the recording of state judgment liens applicable to in-state federal judgment liens under 28 U.S.C. § 1962. Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-380a (a), a judgment hen attaches to the real property of a judgment debtor when the judgment creditor records a judgment lien certificate in the office of the clerk of the town in which the real property lies. A lien so recorded “may be foreclosed or redeemed in the same manner as mortgages on the same property. . . .” General Statutes § 52-380a (c). By virtue of General Statutes § 47-36, enacted in 1953, the legislature has authorized federal court judgments to be recorded in a town’s records and indexed and released in the same manner as state court judgments, thus achieving the conformity anticipated by 28 U.S.C. § 1962.

The defendant argues that the UEFJA requires a litigant who has obtained a judgment in a federal court in Connecticut to register the judgment in state court before commencing a foreclosure proceeding. The UEFJA, which applies only to “foreign judgments” as defined in § 52-604, obviously does not require the registration of Connecticut state court judgments. The implication of the defendant’s argument, therefore, is that the legislature, in enacting the UEFJA, intended to apply to in-state federal judgment liens a registration requirement that did not apply to Connecticut state court judgment liens. Such an enactment by the legislature, however, would be inconsistent with the legislature’s intent, as demonstrated in § 47-36, to achieve the conformity required by 28 U.S.C. § 1962. It would, in fact, destroy that conformity.

“[W]e are guided by the principle that the legislature is always presumed to have created a harmonious and consistent body of law .... Legislation never is written on a clean slate, nor is it ever read in isolation or applied in a vacuum. Every new act takes its place as a component of an extensive and elaborate system of written laws. . . . Construing statutes by reference to others advances [the values of harmony and consistency within the law]. In fact, courts have been said to be under a duty to construe statutes harmoniously where that can reasonably be done. . . . Accordingly, [i]f two statutes appear to be in conflict but can be construed as consistent with each other, then the court should give effect to both.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 157, 788 A.2d 1158 (2002). We cannot conclude that the legislature, in enacting the UEFJA, intended to destroy the conformity it had previously achieved when it enacted § 47-36.

We conclude that the UEFJA does not require the registration of an in-state federal court judgment as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the commencement of an action to foreclose a lien arising from that judgment. As stated, that conclusion is fully consistent with the language of the UEFJA and its underlying policy. Moreover, our interpretation prevents the UEFJA from conflicting with other statutes, namely, § 47-36 and 28 U.S.C. § 1962. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not required to register his federal court judgment under the UEFJA prior to commencing his foreclosure action, and his failure to do so did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court therefore properly denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss.

II

The defendant claims that the court improperly precluded her from relitigating an issue that had been litigated before she became a party to this action. Specifically, she claims that she was entitled to relitigate the validity of a mortgage in favor of Connecticut National Bank (bank) on the subject property. The defendant advances two arguments in support of that claim. First, she argues that the court, in granting her motion to intervene in this action, improperly limited the scope of her intervention by precluding her from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage. Second, she argues that the court improperly accepted the referee’s subsequent decision declining to revisit that issue after the plaintiff had filed two amended complaints. We address those two arguments in turn.

A

The defendant argues that the court, in granting her motion to intervene, improperly limited the scope of her intervention by precluding her from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to that issue. The plaintiff originally commenced this action against the defendant’s former husband, James Becker, who at that time was the owner of the subject property. The defendant originally was not named or served as a party to the action. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the bank claimed an interest superior to the plaintiffs interest in the subject property by virtue of a mortgage dated June 10, 1985, and recorded in the Stamford land records. The plaintiff further alleged that the bank’s interest was void or unenforceable for lack of consideration. On December 8, 1994, the bank was defaulted for failure to appear at a pretrial conference. The case was tried to attorney trial referee Mary E. Sommer on January 5, 1995. In her report of July 10, 1995, Sommer found that the bank’s mortgage was unenforceable on the basis of both the evidence presented at trial and the previous default for failure to appear at the pretrial conference. The court accepted Sommer’s report on November 2, 1995.

Meanwhile, on July 26, 1995, the defendant filed an appearance and a motion to intervene on the ground that she was an equity owner of the subject premises. In her memorandum in support of the motion, the defendant argued that because she was a co-obligor with regard to the bank’s mortgage, she should have been made a party to the plaintiffs foreclosure action, which sought, inter alia, to invalidate that mortgage. In an opposing memorandum filed on August 21, 1995, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s motion should be denied as untimely.

In a supplemental memorandum of law filed on July 19, 1996, nearly one year after her original motion to intervene, the defendant argued that her motion was not untimely because the plaintiff had neglected to file a notice of lis pendens. She argued further that she should be permitted to join the action because she was the sole owner of the equity of redemption by virtue of a March 1, 1994 quitclaim deed from James Becker. The plaintiff filed an opposing memorandum on July 30, 1996, in which he asserted that the defendant had received actual notice of the foreclosure action years before she filed her motion to intervene and that the motion therefore was untimely. The plaintiff submitted with his memorandum a copy of a May 11, 1993 letter to the plaintiffs attorney in which the attorney representing both the defendant and James Becker made reference to the action.

In its September 17, 1996 memorandum of decision on the defendant’s motion to intervene, the court stated: “[The defendant] has not contested [the] plaintiffs claim that she had actual knowledge of this action as early as May, 1993. . . . Nevertheless, the aggregate of her interests in the property, especially her cotenant status, warrant the granting of her motion so that she may receive an opportunity to redeem despite the late filing of her motion.

“On the other hand, the plaintiff correctly insists that a court of equity should not allow [the defendant’s] intervention to further delay this case by permitting her to relitigate adjudicated issues when she could have been a party to this action earlier except for her own, unexplained, dilatory behavior. This court agrees with the plaintiff that [the defendant] has asserted her rights without diligence and in a piecemeal fashion; this conduct is evidenced, among other things, by the 1994 assignments themselves, which should have prompted her to investigate and protect her interests.” Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion to intervene, but ruled that she was precluded from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage or “any other matters which are the law of the case.”

The defendant now claims that the court improperly limited her intervention by precluding her from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage. It is well established that “[a]ny motion for intervention, whether permissive or of right, must be timely. . . . Timeliness of intervention is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, 241 Conn. 734, 744, 699 A.2d 73 (1997). “The necessity for showing that a would-be intervenor made a timely request for intervention involves a determination of how long the intervenor was aware of an interest before he or she tried to intervene, any prejudicial effect of intervention on the existing parties, any prejudicial effect of a denial on the applicant and consideration of any unusual circumstances either for or against timeliness. . . . There are no absolute ways to measure timeliness.” (Citation omitted.) Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 60 Conn. App. 134, 146-47, 758 A.2d 916 (2000).

Our Supreme Court, in Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, supra, 241 Conn. 744-45, emphasized that “[i]n making [the] determination of timeliness with respect to motions to intervene as a matter of right, courts must take into consideration the nature of the interest and for what purpose the intervenor is seeking to be brought into the action.” Washington Trust Co. was a mortgage foreclosure action in which two persons seeking to protect their claimed rights of redemption sought intervention after the foreclosure sale, but before the trial court’s confirmation of the sale. Id., 745. The Supreme Court stated: “[I]f the purpose of the intervention, under the facts of this case, was to challenge the validity of [the plaintiff’s] right to foreclose on the mortgage, when the intervening parties had timely notice of the foreclosure action, then the granting of the motions to intervene at the late date they were presented would be a significant factor for the trial court to consider when ruling on the motions. The dilatory nature of a motion to intervene is always a factor for a trial court to consider.” Id. In light of the prospective intervenors’ purpose of protecting their rights of redemption, however, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the motions to intervene because those rights could be exercised at any time prior to the confirmation of the foreclosure sale. Id.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is directly applicable to the present case. Here, the court found that the defendant had actual knowledge of the action as early as May, 1993. The defendant has not disputed that fact, either before the trial court or on appeal. Nevertheless, the defendant did not move to intervene until July 26, 1995, more than two years after she had received actual notice of the action and six months after the case had gone to trial. The court further stated that James Becker’s conveyance of his interest in the property to the defendant in 1994 should have prompted her to investigate and to protect her interests. Nevertheless, the court permitted the defendant to intervene “so that she [would] receive an opportunity to redeem . . . .” The court’s action was consistent with the Supreme Court’s statement in Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, supra, 241 Conn. 744-45, that a motion to intervene that is timely for one purpose may nevertheless be untimely for another purpose.

We conclude that the court properly ruled that the defendant’s motion to intervene was untimely to the extent that it sought to relitigate the validity of the bank’s mortgage. That issue had been tried more than six months earlier, and the defendant failed to intervene for more than two years after receiving actual notice of the action. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defendant’s intervention by precluding her from relitigating that issue.

B

The defendant further argues that the court improperly accepted the attorney trial referee’s determination that the plaintiffs filing of two amended complaints after the defendant’s intervention did not open the pleadings as to all issues. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to the resolution of that issue. As previously stated, the court rendered judgment in accordance with Sommer’s report on November 2, 1995. The defendant, in support of her motion to intervene, represented to the court that James Becker had conveyed to her his interest in the subject property. At that time, the defendant further represented to the court that the bank’s mortgage had been conveyed, and she submitted a copy of a deed that conveyed the bank’s mortgage to one “Jeanne Altschul, trustee.” The court granted the motion to intervene on September 17, 1996.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7, 1996, adding allegations regarding the defendant’s ownership of the subject property with James Becker. In a second amended complaint, filed on June 7, 1999, the plaintiff added allegations regarding James Becker’s assignment to the defendant of his remaining interest in the subject property. In addition, the plaintiff alleged the assignment of the bank’s mortgage to Altschul. The second amended complaint also added a paragraph alleging that the conveyances to the defendant and to Altschul, as well as the failure of Altschul and the defendant to intervene in a timely manner, were part of a continuing plan to hinder the plaintiff in collecting on his judgment. On July 30,1999, Altschul filed a counterclaim and cross complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the bank’s mortgage, which had been assigned to her, was prior in right to the plaintiffs judgment liens, and seeking foreclosure of that mortgage.

The case was tried for a second time before a different attorney trial referee, Hoddinott, in December, 2000, and January, 2001. At trial, Hoddinott gave the defendant a full opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that Sommer was incorrect in finding the bank’s mortgage invalid. Subsequently, in her trial brief, the defendant argued that the court’s order precluding her from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage was no longer binding as a result of the plaintiffs filing of the two amended complaints.

In his report, Hoddinott rejected what he described as the defendant’s “notion that the mere filing of an amended pleading, without more, somehow unravels the entire history of the case . . . .” Hoddinott noted that as to the issues tried before Sommer, the amended complaints did nothing more than add additional parties. He also found that the defendant had failed to show any new and overriding circumstance that would justify relitigation of the validity of the bank’s mortgage. He concluded that the defendant was bound by the court’s previous order barring her from relitigating that issue. Over the defendant’s objections, the court rendered judgment in accordance with Hoddinott’s report on January 14, 2002.

“We review the court’s decision not to open the pleadings as to all issues under an abuse of discretion standard. . . . Further, [a] foreclosure action constitutes an equitable proceeding. ... In an equitable proceeding, the trial court may examine all relevant factors to ensure that complete justice is done. . . . The determination of what equity requires in a particular case, the balancing of the equities, is a matter for the discretion of the trial court. . . . This court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s decision when reviewing a claim of abuse of discretion. . . . Our review of the trial court’s exercise of legal discretion is limited to the question of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Webster Bank v. Zak, 71 Conn. App. 550, 556-57, 802 A.2d 916, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938, 808 A.2d 1135 (2002). When a defendant relies on an amended complaint as the vehicle for opening the judgment as to all issues in the case, we focus our attention on that complaint and its attendant circumstances. Id., 557.

We have stated that “[t]he voluntary filing of an amended complaint operates as a withdrawal of the prior complaint, and, thereafter, the earlier complaint, though remaining in the files and constituting part of the history of the case, can furnish no basis for a judgment, nor can any previous ruling on it be made a subject of appeal.” (Emphasis added.) Connecticut Bank of Commerce v. Giordano, 67 Conn. App. 79, 81, 787 A.2d 9 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 929, 793 A.2d 253 (2002). In Webster Bank v. Zak, supra, 71 Conn. App. 550, the plaintiff mortgagee filed an amended complaint in response to the court’s granting of a motion by the assignee of the equity of redemption to intervene as a defendant after the court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale. Id., 553. The court had ordered the filing of the amended complaint; id., 559; the sole purpose of which was to add an allegation regarding the conveyance of the equity to the intervening assignee. Id. The assignee claimed that the filing of the amended complaint opened and vacated the entire judgment. The court disagreed and therefore determined that the assignee was bound by the findings underlying the previous judgment of foreclosure by sale. Id., 556.

On appeal, we concluded that the amended complaint was “compulsory in nature and not voluntary.” Id., 557. That conclusion was based both on the fact that the court had ordered the filing of the complaint; id., 559; and on the fact that “but for [the assignee’s] motion to be cited in, [the plaintiff] never would have had to file the second amended complaint.” Id., 557. In addition, we stated that the amended complaint “conformed to the limited purpose of the court order and subsequent motion [for leave to file the amended complaint] because the only addition to the complaint was the naming of [the assignee] as a party defendant.” Id., 560. For those reasons, we held that the court had not abused its discretion in not opening the pleadings as to all issues.

In the present case, the court did not order the filing of the amended complaints, and the plaintiff added a new paragraph alleging new facts in his second amended complaint. Nevertheless, we conclude that the amendment in the present case was not voluntary. The granting of the defendant’s motion to intervene appears to have been the sole impetus for adding the allegation in the first amended complaint regarding the defendant’s coownership of the equity of redemption. In addition, all of the new allegations in the second amended complaint were necessitated by the conveyances to the defendant and to Altschul, which occurred long after the filing of the original complaint, and which were raised by the defendant in connection with her motion to intervene. But for those conveyances and that motion, the plaintiff would not have needed to file the amended complaint. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it accepted Hoddinott’s conclusion that the plaintiffs filing of the two amended complaints did not open the pleadings as to all issues. The court properly precluded the defendant from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage, which had been litigated long before she became a party to the action.

Ill

The defendant claims that the court improperly accepted Hoddinott’s finding that she violated the UFTA. We decline to review that claim because it is inadequately briefed.

Although Hoddinott’s finding of fraud was based entirely on the UFTA, the defendant’s brief is entirely devoid of any reference to or analysis under the statute. The defendant merely asserts that Hoddinott’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence at trial, but fails to elaborate on why the evidence was insufficient to establish any of the grounds for liability under the UFTA. In fact, the brief does not contain citations to any authority whatsoever on the issue.

“We are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . We will not review claims absent law and analysis.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Van Eck, 69 Conn. App. 482, 493, 795 A.2d 582, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 937, 802 A.2d 92, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 915, 806 A.2d 1057 (2002). For that reason, we consider the defendant’s claim challenging the finding that she violated the UFTA to be abandoned and, accordingly, decline to afford it review.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new sale date.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The named defendant, James A. Becker, is the former husband of the defendant Judith Becker. After the commencement of this action, James Becker conveyed his interest in the subject property to Judith Becker, and the court subsequently granted Judith Becker’s motion to intervene. In this opinion, all references to the defendant axe to Judith Becker, who is the sole appellant.

       The defendant’s brief is divided into nineteen sections, each of which purportedly sets forth a discrete issue. A reading of the brief, however, reveals that few, if any, of those sections fully set forth distinct claims. In addition, the defendant has not stated the relevant standard of review for each claim. For those reasons, among others, the defendant’s brief does not comply with Practice Book § 67-1 (d). Nevertheless, by interpreting the various sections of the brief, we have discerned what we believe are the major claims.
      The defendant has attempted to raise a laundry list of other claims. Some claims are merely raised, but are not given serious analysis in the defendant’s brief. With respect to other claims, the defendant lacks standing because they relate solely to rulings against other parties to the action. Other claims are based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of statements made in the pleadings, the attorney trial referees’ reports or the court’s rulings. We determine that all such claims are so lacking in merit that they do not warrant our addressing them in the body of this opinion.

       The case previously had been tried to attorney trial referee Mary E. Sommer on January 5, 1995. See part II.

       The defendant filed a motion for reargument of the motion to dismiss on July 5, 2001, which the court denied on May 17, 2002.

       The plaintiff argues that in-state federal judgments are not within the definition of “foreign judgment” as set forth in General Statutes § 52-604. Because we conclude that the legislature did not intend to require registration under the UEFJA under the circumstances of the present case, we need not determine whether in-state federal judgments generally fall within the definition of “foreign judgment” under § 52-604.

       The defendant concedes that the liens in the present case were in the form prescribed by General Statutes § 52-380a.

       In further support of her argument that the plaintiff is barred from pursuing foreclosure because he has not registered his judgment under the UEFJA, the defendant cites to General Statutes § 52-380a (c), which provides in relevant part: “No action to foreclose a judgment lien filed pursuant to this section may be commenced unless an execution may issue pursuant to section 52-356a. . . .” The defendant argues that an execution may not issue pursuant to General Statutes § 52-356a in the present case because § 52-356a (a) authorizes execution on state court judgments, but not federal court judgments. We conclude that the phrase “unless an execuiion may issue pursuant to section 52-356a’’ merely malees actions for foreclosure of judgment liens, like executions against personal property pursuant to § 52-356a, “subject to the expiration of any stay of enforcement and expiration of any right of appeal . . . General Statutes § 52-356a (a). Consequently, we find no merit to the defendant’s argument.

       The defendant also argues that she should not have been collaterally estopped from relitigating the validity of the bank’s mortgage. Our review of the record, however, reveals that collateral estoppel was not the basis of any ruling by the court.

       The court did not expressly determine whether the defendant moved to intervene under a theory of permissive intervention or intervention of right. For the purpose of the present analysis, we assume arguendo that the defendant moved for intervention as a matter of right.

       Altschul is the mother of the defendant’s attorney.

       Hoddinott considered in the alternative the evidence and arguments offered by the defendant at trial regarding the validity of the bank’s mortgage and concluded that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that Sommer incorrectly found a lack of consideration. In addition, he noted that even if the evidence showed sufficient consideration, Sommer had found the bank’s mortgage invalid on a second independent ground, namely, the prior default that had entered against the bank. Hoddinott noted that the default had never been opened and concluded that it continued to provide an independent ground for finding the bank’s mortgage invalid. We need not consider those additional determinations by Hoddinott because our conclusion that the court properly accepted Hoddinott’s determination that the amended complaints did not open the case as to the issues previously litigated is dispositive.

       In her brief, the defendant also challenges Hoddinott’s adoption of Sommer’s conclusion that the bank’s mortgage was unenforceable for lack of consideration. Because we have already determined that the court properly accepted Hoddinott’s determination that the defendant was precluded from relitigating that issue, we need not determine whether Hoddinott was correct when he determined, in the alternative, that Sommer’s previous ruling was correct on the merits.

       Hoddinott concluded that the plaintiff did not prove common-law fraud.


text:
    KATHERINE MCMANUS v. JOSEPH H. SWEENEY
    (AC 22867)
    Lavery, C. J., and Bishop and West, Js.

      Argued March 24
    officially released July 29, 2003

      Katrena K. Engstrom, with whom, on the brief, was John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Michael T. Ryan, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

LAVERY, C. J.

The plaintiff, Katherine McManus, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Joseph H. Sweeney. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish defamatory statements contained in a letter he wrote to Hugh Barber, an assistant attorney general for the state of Connecticut. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pleadings, affidavits and other documentary information presented to the court reveal the following facts. The plaintiff initiated this action against the defendant, an attorney, asserting claims of defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff, at all times relevant to the action, was employed as a social worker by the department of social services (department). The first count of the plaintiffs complaint sounded in defamation and alleged that on or about March 12, 1999, the defendant wrote a letter to Barber, an assistant attorney general, “in which [the defendant] falsely and maliciously accused [her] of taking actions injurious to a ward of the Probate Court, of overstepping her role as an employee [of the department], [of] violating the policies and procedures, of the department . . . and of violating the rights of a ward of the Probate Court.” The second count of the plaintiffs complaint contained similar allegations and asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant answered the complaint, admitting only that he wrote a letter to Barber on or about March 12, 1999, and asserted four special defenses. The contents of the letter are not in dispute.

On November 6,2001, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiffs complaint, claiming that he was absolutely privileged to publish the allegedly defamatory statements contained in the letter to Barber. Specifically, the defendant claimed that his statements were absolutely privileged both because they were published in the course of and in relation to a judicial proceeding, and because they were published in the contemplation of an administrative, or quasi-judicial, proceeding. On February 26,2002, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because it determined that the letter was published in connection with a pending Probate Court proceeding and that it was published in furtherance of (preliminary to) an administrative or quasi-judicial proceeding. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

“The standard of review of a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is well established. Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 17-49. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant [a] motion for summary judgment is plenary.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 450, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish the statements contained in his letter to Barber. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendant was not absolutely privileged to publish the contents of the letter because (1) the defendant’s letter cannot be construed as having been written “in the course of’ a judicial proceeding, and (2) “viewing the defendant’s letter as an attempt to initiate an administrative proceeding is insufficient to bring the letter within the immunity that would attach to a participant in such a proceeding for statements made therein.” We conclude that the court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to an absolute privilege from liability for defamation because the letter was published during the course of a judicial proceeding. *We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish his letter because the letter could not properly be construed as having been written “in the course of’ a judicial proceeding. We disagree.

“The effect of an absolute privilege in a defamation action is that damages cannot be recovered for a defamatory statement even if it is published falsely and maliciously.” Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549, 565, 606 A.2d 693 (1992). “There is a long-standing common law rule that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged so long as they are in some way pertinent to the subject of the controversy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243, 245-46, 510 A.2d 1337 (1986). Thus, “we . . . [afford] to attorneys, as officers of the court, absolute immunity from liability for allegedly defamatory communications in the course of judicial proceedings.” Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 494-95, 529 A.2d 171 (1987); Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 64 Conn. App. 192, 199, 779 A.2d 822 (2001), rev’d in part on other grounds, 260 Conn. 766, 802 A.2d 44 (2002); see also Blakeslee & Sons v. Carroll, 64 Conn. 223, 232 (1894), overruled in part on other grounds, Petyan v. Ellis, supra, 243; see DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 263 n.22, 597 A.2d 807 (1991); 3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 586, p. 247 (1977).

“The ‘judicial proceeding’ to which the immunity attaches has not been defined very exactly. It includes any hearing before a tribunal which performs a judicial function, ex parte or otherwise, and whether the hearing is public or not. It includes for example, lunacy, bankruptcy, or naturalization proceedings, and an election contest. . . . This privilege extends to every step of the proceeding until final disposition. . . . [L]ike the privilege which is generally applied to pertinent statements made in formal judicial proceedings, an absolute privilege also attaches to relevant statements made during administrative proceedings which are quasi-judicial in nature.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Petyan v. Ellis, supra, 200 Conn. 246. “The policy underlying the privilege is that in certain situations the public interest in having people speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and malicious statements.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

The following additional facts are necessary for our resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. At the time the defendant wrote the allegedly defamatory letter at issue, he was the court-appointed attorney for Christopher McManus, the plaintiffs father, in a pending Probate Court proceeding regarding the appointment of a permanent conservator for Christopher McManus’ person and estate. The letter sets forth, inter alia, the events and circumstances that led to the defendant’s belief that the plaintiff may have improperly used her position with the department to engage in some impropriety with regard to the Probate Court proceeding. The defendant’s purpose in writing the letter was to request that an investigation be made into the plaintiffs conduct as it related to the Probate Court proceeding concerning Christopher McManus. Specifically, the letter requested that the attorney general’s office investigate whether the plaintiff improperly had used her position with the department to violate Christopher McManus’ civil rights and whether the plaintiff had engaged in some impropriety with regard to having Dorcas White, a social worker with the department, removed from Christopher McManus’ case.

In the present case, it is undisputed that there was a pending Probate Court proceeding concerning the appointment of a permanent conservator for Christopher McManus, the defendant’s client. A Probate Court proceeding regarding the appointment of a permanent conservator of a person and his estate is a type of “judicial proceeding” to which the privilege would attach. This case, therefore, requires us to consider whether the subject letter was published in the course of that judicial proceeding. Whether a communication is published in the course of a judicial proceeding, so as to obtain the benefit of the absolute privilege, is a question of law for the court to decide, and our review is, therefore, plenary. See Bleich v. Ortiz, 196 Conn. 498, 501, 493 A.2d 236 (1985); Ely v. Mason, 97 Conn. 38, 43, 115 A. 479 (1921); 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 619, p. 316.

Section 586 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides: “An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding.” “The privilege ... is confined to statements made by an attorney while performing his function as such. Therefore it is available only when the defamatory matter has some reference to the subject matter of the proposed or pending litigation, although it need not be strictly relevant to any issue involved in it. ...” 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 586, comment (c). “The privilege ... is based upon a public policy of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients. . . .” Id., § 586, comment (a).

The judicial proceedings privilege “extends to any statement made in the course of a judicial proceeding, whether or not given under oath, so long as it is pertinent to the controversy. . . . Thus it applies to statements made in pleadings or other documents prepared in connection with a court proceeding.” (Citation omitted.) Petyan v. Ellis, supra, 200 Conn. 251-52. “It is not absolutely essential, [however] in order to obtain the benefits of absolute privilege, that the language claimed to be defamatory be spoken in open court or contained in a pleading, brief, or affidavit.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Romero v. Prince, 85 N.M. 474, 477, 513 P.2d 717 (1973); Zirn v. Cullom, 187 Misc. 241, 243, 63 N.Y.S.2d 439 (1946); see also Kelley v. Bonney, supra, 221 Conn. 572-74 (defendant’s communication to alleged potential witness held absolutely immune because communication aimed at marshaling evidence against plaintiff); Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 216-17, 661 A.2d 284 (1995).

“In determining whether an occasion is absolutely privileged, the pivotal factor is frequently to whom the matter is published. . . . The privilege may be lost by unnecessary or unreasonable publication to one for whom the occasion is not privileged.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Bonney, supra, 221 Conn. 575.

Although the appellate courts of this state have not had much opportunity to address the applicability of the judicial proceedings privilege to a defamatory communication under a circumstance similar to the one at issue in the present case, that is, to an attorney’s out-of-court communication to an individual without a direct interest in the judicial proceeding, “[sjeveral courts have recognized absolute immunity for publication to an individual or organization without a direct interest in the relevant proceedings where the recipient nonetheless had some interest in the proceeding. . . . The cases which have considered similar out-of-court communications to a third party have required that the recipient have an interest in or connection to the judicial proceeding and that the attorney’s communication have a sufficient relationship to the subject matter of the proceeding. See generally Annot., 23 A.L.R.4th 932 (1983).” (Citations omitted.) Penny v. Sherman, 101 N.M. 517, 520, 684 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 555, 685 P.2d 963 (1984).

In Riccobene v. Scales, 19 F. Sup. 2d 577, 579 (N.D.W. Va. 1998), the defendant attorney represented the plaintiffs former wife in domestic violence and divorce actions against the plaintiff, a sergeant first class in the United States Army. At the former wife’s request, the defendant attorney sent a letter to the plaintiffs superior officer. Id., 580. The purpose of the letter was to obtain the military’s help in stopping the plaintiff from abusing and harassing his former wife. Id. In response, the plaintiff filed an ethics complaint against the attorney with the West Virginia bar. Id. The attorney responded to the plaintiffs ethics complaint by sending a letter to the state bar. Id. The attorney also sent a copy of the letter with attachments, including her affidavit addressing the allegations in the ethics complaint, to the plaintiffs superior officer because the plaintiffs former wife had informed the attorney that the plaintiff continued to abuse and harass her, and that she feared for her physical safety. Id.

Thereafter, the plaintiff brought an action against the attorney, advancing several theories, each of which was predicated on allegations of defamation that arose from the attorney’s transmission of the two letters to the plaintiffs superior officer. Id., 581.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held that the attorney’s two items of correspondence to the plaintiffs superior officer were absolutely privileged. Id., 583. Although an order had been entered in the divorce action and two domestic violence protective orders had been entered, the court found that the correspondence to the plaintiffs superior officer had been published during the course of, and as part of, the domestic violence proceeding in which the attorney had participated as counsel. Id., 582-83. The court explained that the publications to the plaintiffs superior officer arose from the attorney’s representation of the plaintiffs former wife in the domestic violence action and were directly related to the attorney’s efforts to stop the plaintiffs abuse of his former wife, which apparently had continued despite the protective orders. Id., 583.

Although the court noted that publication to a person with a direct interest in the judicial proceeding is not an independent element in the absolute privilege analysis, the court nevertheless found “that the United States Army had a clear and direct interest in receiving reports of alleged spousal or child abuse committed by its soldiers.” Id., 584. The court stated that “[a]t the time of [the defendant’s] contacts with the plaintiffs superior officer, the United States Army had in effect a formal policy designed to both stop and prevent domestic violence.” Id. It therefore concluded that “the United States Army had a clear and express interest in receiving reports of domestic violence allegedly committed by its soldiers.” Id.

In Penny v. Sherman, supra, 101 N.M. 519, the defendant, an attorney, represented the decedent’s estate. Shortly after the decedent’s death, the decedent’s beneficiaries had met with the plaintiff, an employee of the Deming Senior Citizens Center (senior center), who had been identified to them as a friend of the decedent and who the decedent had known through the senior center. Id. The plaintiff allegedly had agreed to sell certain items of the decedent’s personal property and to account for the proceeds. Id. Concerned that the plaintiff had not accounted for the property she had agreed to sell, the beneficiaries requested that the defendant contact the plaintiff and demand the return of the decedent’s property or its value. Id. After being forwarded the plaintiffs unsatisfactory response to the defendant’s demand letter, the beneficiaries requested that the defendant contact the senior center in an effort to collect the property or the money from its sale and to advise the senior center of the beneficiaries’ problems with the plaintiff. Id. The defendant communicated with the director of the senior center regarding the dispute between the plaintiff and the estate. Id. The defendant, at the director’s request, also sent the director a copy of the demand letter. Id. The plaintiff’s libel action was based on the defendant’s publication of the demand letter to the director. Id.

The Court of Appeals of New Mexico held that the defendant’s letter was absolutely privileged. Id., 521. The court, contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, stated that “[publication to a person with a direct interest in the judicial proceeding is not an independent element in the absolute privilege analysis. The direct interest of the recipient is one factor in the analysis of whether a publication has such a relation to a judicial proceeding that the absolute privilege applies.” Id., 520. The court stated that its decision in Romero v. Prince, supra, 85 N.M. 474, which relied on the Restatement of Torts § 586 (1938), “stands for the proposition that any letter from an attorney that is reasonably related to an ongoing or contemplated judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged.” Penny v. Sherman, supra, 101 N.M. 520. In determining that the defendant’s letter was absolutely privileged, the court held that “[b]y its terms, the letter was a communication during the course of the probate of the estate designed to achieve the interests of [the defendant’s] clients. It was a demand letter written on behalf of the personal representative in an effort to accomplish his legal obligation to collect the estate assets. . . . The substance of the letter related to the ongoing probate proceedings and to a potential suit related to those proceedings.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 520-21.

In addressing the issue of the senior center’s interest in the probate proceeding, the court determined that there were sufficient allegations in the various affidavits to provide a basis for the senior center’s interest in the proceeding. Id., 521. The court stated, inter alia, that the decedent was a “client” of the senior center, that the plaintiff had become acquainted with the decedent through it, that the affidavits indicated that the senior center had some public responsibility for the affairs of senior citizens and that the beneficiaries perceived the plaintiffs dealings with them as related to her job at the senior center. Id. The court concluded that those allegations provided a sufficient basis for its determination that it was reasonable for the personal representative to contact the senior center about the dispute. Id. The court concluded that “[publication of the letter to . . . the director of the [senior center] was reasonably related to the ongoing judicial proceeding and, consequently, was absolutely privileged.” Id.

Although we do not today attempt to define the scope of the judicial proceedings privilege, we do conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the letter at issue was published in the course of and as a part of the Probate Court proceeding concerning the appointment of a permanent conservator for Christopher McManus. As in Riccobene and Penny, the publication of the defendant’s letter to Barber arose from his representation of Christopher McManus in the Probate Court proceeding and directly related to the defendant’s efforts to represent his client’s interests in that proceeding by stopping or exposing the plaintiffs alleged misconduct.

The letter at issue specifically references the pending Probate Court proceeding and identifies the defendant as the attorney for Christopher McManus. By its own terms, the purpose of the letter was “to seek immediate assistance in connection with a [P]robate [C]ourt hearing for the appointment of a permanent conservator of [Christopher McManus’] person and his estate.” The issues addressed in the letter pertain, inter alia, to the events and circumstances that led to the defendant’s belief that the plaintiff may have improperly used her position with the department to violate Christopher McManus’ rights and to engage in some impropriety with regard to the Probate Court proceeding.

Although it is true that Barber did not have a direct interest in the Probate Court proceeding, and that “ [t]he privilege may be lost by unnecessary or unreasonable publication to one for whom the occasion is not privileged”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Kelley v. Bonney, supra, 221 Conn. 575; we do not think that the publication to Barber was unreasonable. Barber, as an assistant attorney general, represents the state and its agencies, including the department. See General Statutes § 3-125. Although technically the attorney general’s office may not be the correct office with which to file a complaint, if there is a potential problem with a department employee, the attorney general does provide legal representation to state agencies, including the department, and it was not unreasonable for the defendant to publish to that office a letter alleging that a department employee may have improperly used her employment to advance her personal interest in a court proceeding. This is not a case in which the defendant published defamatory matter to the media or to some other party that had no interest in the litigation. The letter was published to Barber, a legal representative of the department, who forwarded the letter to the department for investigation. The department has an interest in knowing if one of its social workers is using her position improperly to influence a court proceeding. Similarly, the department has an interest in a judicial proceeding if one of its employees is using her position improperly to influence that proceeding. We, therefore, conclude that the office of the attorney general had, as legal representative for the department, an interest in the Probate Court proceeding at issue in the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the statements contained in the defendant’s letter were absolutely privileged because the letter was published in the course of and as part of a Probate Court proceeding regarding the appointment of a permanent conservator for Christopher McManus. Our holding is consistent with the purpose of the absolute privilege, which is “based upon a public policy of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients. . . .”3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 586, comment (a), p. 247.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The court granted summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiffs complaint because it determined that the “[absolute privilege] . . . operates not only to preclude the plaintiffs cause of action for defamation . . . but also operates to preclude the plaintiffs cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the second count.” Although the plaintiff challenges the court’s conclusion that the defendant is entitled to an absolute privilege, she has not claimed that such a privilege, if applicable, would not apply to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to address the issue of whether an absolute privilege also would bar a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress founded on the same conduct as the defamation claim. Because we conclude that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish the allegedly defamatory letter to Barber, summary judgment was properly rendered on both counts of the plaintiffs complaint.

       For purposes of this opinion, we assume, but do not decide, that the defendant’s letter contained defamatory statements.

       Because our conclusion that the defendant is absolutely immune from defamation liability because his letter was published in the course of a judicial proceeding is dispositive of this appeal, we need not reach the issue of whether the letter was published preliminary to a quasi-judicial proceeding.

       In support, of her claim, the plaintiff discusses a laundry list of prosecutorial immunity cases and, apparently, equates this case to various cases in which courts have denied absolute immunity to prosecutors. We agree with the defendant that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to decipher from the plaintiffs brief an argument which supports application of the principle of ‘prosecutorial immunity’ ” to this case. The defendant in this case is not a prosecutor, nor was he acting in a prosecutorial manner when he published his letter. We therefore conclude that the principle of prosecutorial immunity is not applicable to this case and that the cases cited by the plaintiff are inapposite to the case before us.

       The defendant’s letter alleged that the plaintiff, after being appointed temporary conservatrix of her father, kept him unnecessarily and against his will in a locked mental health unit at Bridgeport Manor. It further alleged that during the course of a March 1, 1999 Probate Court hearing, held for the purpose of appointing the plaintiff as permanent conservatrix of her father, Lilly Allen, a regional ombudsmen, LTC Ombudsman Program of the department, made the point before the court that Christopher McManus had been deprived of the use of a telephone, that the plaintiff, in her role as conservatrix, allowed him no visitors and that his confinement at the Bridgeport Manor exceeded the restrictions appropriate to a person in his condition. The letter also stated that at the same hearing, Dorcas White, a “social worker for the Protective Services for the Elderly of the Department,” recommended that an independent evaluation of Christopher McManus be obtained before the court made any determination as to the appointment of a permanent conservator. The letter stated that the court stayed the hearing pending an evaluation of Christopher McManus, which the court ordered.
      The letter then related the content of some discussions the defendant had wi1h Allen and White after the March 1, 1999 Probate Court hearing, but before the court-ordered evaluation of Christopher McManus had been obtained. According to the letter, White received a telephone call from the Fairfield Probate Court, telling her 1hat the court had been advised by Marie Verep, a friend of the plaintiffs and fellow employee of the department, that White had been removed from Christopher McManus’ case. White was given no reason for her removal from the case. She told the defendant that Verep was not a social worker with the department and, therefore, did not have authority to remove White from the case or to advise the court of such removal. With regard to the defendant’s conversations with Allen, the letter stated that Allen had informed the defendant that Christopher McManus’ rights were violated by the limiting of his telephone calls and visitors, and that she believed that the plaintiff had overstepped her role as an employee of the department in violating Christopher McManus’ rights.

       We note that some of our trial courts have treated the issue of whether a communication was published in the course of a judicial proceeding as a question of fact. See Wilkinson v. Schoenhom, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 565559 (March 24, 1999). We take this opportunity to clarify that “[wjhether a defamatory communication implicates an interest worthy of protection is a question of law . . . .” Bleich v. Ortiz, supra, 196 Conn. 501. It is, therefore, the courts’ duty to determine, on the basis of the underlying facts, whether a particular communication was published in the course of a judicial proceeding so that the benefit of the absolute privilege applies.

       The law firm for which the attorney worked also was named as a defendant in the action. For our purposes, we refer only to counsel for the former wife as the defendant.

       Thus, “[publication to the news media is not ordinarily sufficiently related to a judicial proceeding to constitute aprivileged occasion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Bonney, supra, 221 Conn. 576.

       See, e.g., Szewczyk v. Dept. of Social Services, 77 Conn. App. 38, 822 A.2d 957 (2003) (attorney general’s office represented department); Commissioner of Social Services v. Syed, 74 Conn. App. 190, 810 A.2d 846 (2002) (same).