Schaeppi v. Unifund CCR Partners ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • ******************************************************
    The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
    beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
    be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
    date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
    date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
    postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
    the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
    In no event will any such motions be accepted before
    the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
    cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
    event of discrepancies between the electronic version
    of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
    Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
    necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
    latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
    The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
    the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
    Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
    and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
    of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
    the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
    duced and distributed without the express written per-
    mission of the Commission on Official Legal
    Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ******************************************************
    ELLEN SCHAEPPI ET AL. v. UNIFUND CCR
    PARTNERS ET AL.
    (AC 36524)
    Lavine, Beach and Prescott, Js.
    Argued April 16—officially released November 3, 2015
    (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of
    Hartford, Hon. Robert F. Stengel, judge trial referee.)
    Kirk D. Tavtigian, Jr., for the appellants-appellees
    (plaintiffs).
    Robert W. Cassot, with whom, on the brief, was Cris-
    tin E. Sheehan, for the appellees-appellants (defendant
    Tobin & Melien et al.).
    Jonathan D. Elliot and Drummond C. Smith filed a
    brief for the appellee (named defendant).
    Opinion
    BEACH, J. This case is before us for the third time.
    The plaintiffs, Ellen Schaeppi and Ernest Schaeppi,
    appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered,
    in part, in favor of the defendants, Tobin & Melien,
    Joseph M. Tobin, P.C., Peter E. Melien, P.C. (collec-
    tively, T&M), and Unifund CCR Partners (Unifund). The
    plaintiffs’ action sounded in vexatious litigation; they
    alleged that the defendants lacked probable cause to
    pursue an action seeking to foreclose a judgment lien.
    On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred
    in concluding that (1) Unifund proved its defense of
    reliance on the advice of its counsel, T&M, and (2) T&
    M had probable cause to institute and to pursue part
    of the foreclosure action.1 On cross appeal, T&M claims
    that the trial court erred in concluding that it did not
    have probable cause to pursue an appeal from the denial
    of its motion to open the judgment in the foreclosure
    action. Unifund filed a brief contesting the plaintiffs’
    arguments on appeal. We disagree with the plaintiffs’
    claims on appeal and agree with T&M regarding the
    issue it raised in its cross appeal.
    The following undisputed facts and procedural his-
    tory, as previously set forth by this court are relevant
    to our analysis. ‘‘On July 27, 2004, [Unifund]2 [brought
    an action] seeking to collect credit card debt allegedly
    owed by the [plaintiffs]. A hearing was held on October
    31, 2005, before an attorney fact finder. In his January
    5, 2006 report,3 [the fact finder] recommended judgment
    in favor of the [plaintiffs] because [Unifund] had failed
    to establish that the credit card debt had been assigned
    to [Unifund]. [Unifund] objected to the acceptance of
    the findings of fact on February 6, 2006. The court,
    Miller, J., remanded the matter to the attorney fact
    finder for a rehearing on the issue of whether there had
    been a valid assignment of the credit card debt. After
    the hearing on remand was held on March 27, 2006, the
    attorney fact finder recommended, in a report dated
    March 30, 2006, that judgment enter in favor of [Uni-
    fund]. On June 19, 2006, the court rendered judgment
    in favor of [Unifund], stating: Judgment shall enter in
    favor of [Unifund] on the fact finder’s report as revised
    after remand. [Unifund] placed a judgment lien4 on real
    property owned by the [plaintiffs] which was recorded
    in the Glastonbury land records on July 18, 2006. [Uni-
    fund] then filed with the court a motion for an order
    of weekly payments on August 25, 2006, seeking pay-
    ments of $35 per week. On September 11, 2006, the
    court, Miller, J., granted the motion and set payments
    of $25 per week to commence on October 11, 2006.
    ‘‘By complaint filed on November 13, 2006, [Unifund]
    then sought foreclosure on the judgment lien. On Sep-
    tember 10, 2007, [Unifund] filed a motion for partial
    summary judgment as to liability. By memorandum of
    decision filed March 20, 2008, the court, Hon. Robert
    Satter, judge trial referee, denied the motion because
    the issue of what portion of the [plaintiffs’] interest in
    their property is exempt . . . gives rise to an issue of
    fact, which . . . precludes the granting of [Unifund’s]
    motion for summary judgment. . . . The court went
    on to state that there was another ground on which
    [Unifund’s] motion for summary judgment must be
    denied. . . . The court indicated it had taken judicial
    notice of and examined the court file of the debt collec-
    tion action that formed the basis of the foreclosure
    action. It concluded from that examination that no
    money judgment had entered in that case because the
    attorney fact finder had made no finding as to the
    amount of debt. Moreover, the court continued, Judge
    Miller had subsequently ordered that judgment enter in
    favor of [Unifund] on the basis of the attorney fact
    finder’s report without stating the amount of the judg-
    ment. Judge Satter reasoned that, because General Stat-
    utes § 52-350f provides in relevant part that a money
    judgment may be enforced, by execution or by foreclo-
    sure of a real property lien, to the amount of the money
    judgment, and General Statutes § 52-380a (a) provides
    in relevant part that [a] judgment lien, securing the
    unpaid amount of any money judgment, including inter-
    est and costs, may be placed on any real property, the
    judgment lien underlying the foreclosure action was of
    questionable validity. The court, however, acknowledg-
    ing that the only motion before it was [Unifund’s]
    motion for summary judgment, declared that it was
    making no such ruling.
    ‘‘On March 28, 2008, [Unifund] filed a motion with
    the court, Miller, J., seeking clarification of its June 19,
    2006 judgment. The court held a hearing on the matter
    on May 12, 2008, during which [Unifund] indicated that
    it was seeking to have the court clarify the dollar
    amount of the judgment. After hearing from both par-
    ties, the court concluded that there never was a finding
    as to the amount of the debt and that the judgment
    should not have been allowed to enter without a finite
    dollar amount. As a result, the court further concluded,
    there never was a money judgment entered in the
    action, and, therefore, under the unique circumstances
    of the case, there was no basis for the court to clarify
    the judgment.
    ‘‘On July 31, 2008, the [plaintiffs] filed a motion for
    summary judgment, attaching Judge Satter’s March 20,
    2008 memorandum of decision addressing [Unifund’s]
    motion for partial summary judgment. . . . After a
    hearing was held on the matter, Judge Satter, by memo-
    randum of decision filed October 15, 2008, granted the
    motion, concluding that, as a matter of law, a judgment
    of no amount, underlying a judgment lien in an incorrect
    amount cannot form the basis of a foreclosure
    action. . . .
    ‘‘[In the first appeal, Unifund CCR Partners v.
    Schaeppi, 
    126 Conn. App. 370
    , 
    11 A.3d 723
    (2011), [Uni-
    fund] appealed from the court’s granting of the [plain-
    tiffs’] motion for summary judgment, claiming, inter
    alia, that the court improperly concluded that the judg-
    ment lien that formed the basis of the foreclosure action
    was invalid as a matter of law because it sought to
    secure a money judgment of no amount. . . . [Unifund]
    advanced two alternate arguments in support of that
    claim. First, [Unifund] argued that the judgment ren-
    dered by Judge Miller on June 19, 2006, was a full and
    final judgment as to liability and damages because the
    amount of the judgment was ascertainable from the
    record. . . . [Unifund] argued that, in the alternative,
    the order for weekly payments entered by the court on
    September 11, 2006, was a money judgment and, could,
    therefore, serve as the basis for a judgment lien. . . .
    ‘‘This court rejected both of [Unifund’s] arguments
    and affirmed the trial court’s granting of the [plaintiffs’]
    motion for summary judgment. . . . In reaching its
    decision, this court first determined that the June 19,
    2006 judgment was not a full and final judgment because
    it did not specify with certainty the amount for which
    it was rendered, nor was the amount ascertainable from
    the record or by mere mathematical computation. . . .
    Without deciding whether the installment payment
    order of September 11, 2006, was a money judgment,
    this court concluded that it was impossible for it to
    have served as the basis for the judgment lien, as the
    judgment lien was recorded weeks before the court
    entered its installment payment order. . . .
    ‘‘On June 21, 2011, following this court’s affirmance
    of the trial court’s granting of the [plaintiffs’] motion
    for summary judgment, [Unifund] filed a motion to open
    and modify the judgment of June 19, 2006. The court
    denied that motion and [Unifund’s] subsequent motion
    for reargument and reconsideration filed on August 2,
    2011. [Unifund], on November 7, 2011, filed a motion
    for articulation, requesting that the court articulate its
    rationale for denying [Unifund’s] motion to open and
    modify the June 19, 2006 judgment. On December 2,
    2011, the court granted [Unifund’s] motion for articula-
    tion and explained in its articulation that the judgment
    [Unifund] sought to open, lacking a specific dollar
    amount, was not a valid judgment. Thus, the court
    explained, it did not have the ability to open a judgment
    that was never really a judgment.’’ (Citations omitted;
    internal quotation marks omitted.) Unifund CCR Part-
    ners v. Schaeppi, 
    140 Conn. App. 281
    , 283–86, 
    59 A.3d 282
    (2013).
    Unifund again appealed. The second appeal was
    taken from the court’s denial of the June 21, 2011 motion
    to open and modify the judgment rendered on June 19,
    2006. 
    Id., 286. This
    court rejected Unifund’s argument
    that the trial court erred in denying its motion to open,
    reasoning that because ‘‘there existed no valid judgment
    to open in the first instance . . . the court did not
    abuse its discretion in finding that it could not open
    that which was never properly entered as a judgment.’’
    
    Id., 287. The
    plaintiffs then brought the present action alleging
    both statutory and common-law vexatious litigation
    against the defendants for pursuing the foreclosure
    action against them, and sought damages for embar-
    rassment, humiliation, loss of sleep, and mental and
    emotional distress, physical injury and aggravation of
    preexisting physical and emotional injuries. The plain-
    tiffs also sought an award of double or treble damages
    pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568,5 punitive dam-
    ages, costs, interests and attorney’s fees.
    In its December 18, 2013 decision, the court, Hon.
    Robert F. Stengel, judge trial referee, found it undis-
    puted that T&M commenced a foreclosure action
    against the plaintiffs on behalf of its client, Unifund.
    The court found that Unifund acted on the advice of
    its counsel, T&M, and, thus, Unifund proved its special
    defense. The court further found that T&M had probable
    cause to initiate and to pursue the foreclosure proceed-
    ings up to and including the filing of the motion to
    open. The court found, however, that T&M did not have
    probable cause to pursue the appeal from the denial of
    the motion to open, but also that T&M did not act
    with malice. The court awarded the plaintiffs double
    damages pursuant to § 52-568, for a total amount of
    damages of $28,000. This appeal and cross appeal
    followed.
    I
    The plaintiffs first claim that the trial court erred in
    determining that Unifund satisfied its burden of proving
    that it had relied on the advice of counsel in initiating
    and prosecuting the foreclosure action. We disagree.
    ‘‘Advice of counsel is a complete defense to an action
    of . . . vexatious suit when it is shown that the defen-
    dant . . . instituted his civil action relying in good faith
    on such advice, given after a full and fair statement of
    all facts within his knowledge, or which he was charged
    with knowing. . . . The defendant has the burden of
    proof with respect to this special defense. . . .
    Whether there was a full and fair disclosure of material
    facts as required by the advice of counsel defense is a
    question of fact . . . and [a]ppellate review of findings
    of fact is limited to deciding whether such findings
    were clearly erroneous.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Verspyck
    v. Franco, 
    274 Conn. 105
    , 112–13, 
    874 A.2d 249
    (2005).
    The trial court found that T&M had provided legal
    representation to Unifund since 1999 and that T&M
    represented Unifund at all relevant times in this foreclo-
    sure action. The court further found that Unifund had
    relied in good faith on T&M’s legal advice after giving
    T&M a full and fair statement of all the relevant facts
    in the case. The court concluded that Unifund had relied
    on the representations of T&M in the foreclosure action
    and found Unifund’s defense proved.
    The plaintiffs argue that proof of reliance was lacking
    because no employee of Unifund testified at the vexa-
    tious litigation trial and no witness with personal knowl-
    edge testified that Unifund relied on T&M’s advice in
    initiating and prosecuting the foreclosure action. The
    plaintiffs emphasize certain evidence that was admitted
    in the vexatious litigation trial to support their proposi-
    tion that Unifund did not prove good faith. The plaintiffs
    highlight e-mail communications between representa-
    tives of Unifund and T&M, that indicate that T&M
    informed Unifund that it had secured a judgment against
    the plaintiffs and asked for permission to foreclose the
    judgment lien, and a representative of Unifund
    responded affirmatively. They also point to evidence
    that T&M had faxed to Unifund statements from the
    plaintiffs regarding their illnesses and lack of financial
    resources. T&M asked Unifund if it wanted to proceed
    with the foreclosure and Unifund answered affirma-
    tively. In turn, Unifund argues that, on the basis of the
    testimony at the vexatious litigation trial provided by
    Scott Dellaventura, an attorney for T&M at the relevant
    times, it was clear that Unifund relied on the advice of
    T&M.
    ‘‘In a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the
    sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the
    weight to be given specific testimony. . . . It is within
    the province of the trial court, as the fact finder, to
    weigh the evidence presented and determine the credi-
    bility and effect to be given the evidence.’’ (Citation
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle Co.
    v. D’Addario, 
    268 Conn. 441
    , 462, 
    844 A.2d 836
    (2004).
    The evidence that the plaintiffs stress, moreover, does
    not demonstrate lack of reliance. That T&M received
    Unifund’s consent before initiating and continuing to
    prosecute the foreclosure lawsuit is not dispositive as
    to whether Unifund relied on the advice of T&M; an
    attorney should proceed with a lawsuit only at the
    instance of the client. The material point is whether
    there was a valid judgment lien on which to foreclose.
    In the e-mail highlighted by the plaintiffs, an attorney
    for T&M represented that a judgment had been
    obtained. On being informed of the judgment, Unifund
    gave consent to proceed with foreclosure.
    The plaintiffs point to no law for the proposition that
    specific evidence from designated witnesses must be
    introduced in order to satisfy the element of good faith
    reliance. Dellaventura testified at the vexatious litiga-
    tion trial that T&M represented Unifund in as many as
    2000 debt collection matters per year and that T&M
    would ‘‘go through them to see if there were any con-
    flicts or any other issues that we couldn’t proceed on
    and then [we] would begin sending out a letter of
    demand . . . .’’ He further testified that he believed
    that there had been a judgment of $9382.05 against the
    plaintiffs in the foreclosure action and that he did not
    tell Unifund that the judgment was invalid. He recom-
    mended to Unifund that, in order to execute on the
    judgment, various steps had to be taken. He testified
    that Unifund generally agreed with his recommenda-
    tions. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not
    err in finding that Unifund had proved its defense of
    reliance on advice of counsel.
    II
    The primary issue in this case concerns the trial
    court’s conclusions regarding probable cause. On
    appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in con-
    cluding that T&M had probable cause to initiate and
    to pursue the foreclosure action at all, because the
    judgment lien sought to be foreclosed was invalid. On
    cross appeal, T&M claims that the court erred in con-
    cluding that there was no probable cause to appeal
    from the denial of the motion to open. We disagree
    with the plaintiffs’ claims on appeal and agree with
    T&M’s claim in its cross appeal.
    ‘‘The cause of action for vexatious litigation permits
    a party who has been wrongfully sued to recover dam-
    ages. . . . In Connecticut, the cause of action for vexa-
    tious litigation exists both at common law and pursuant
    to statute. Both the common law and statutory causes
    of action [require] proof that a civil action has been
    prosecuted . . . . Additionally, to establish a claim for
    vexatious litigation at common law, one must prove
    want of probable cause, malice and a termination of
    suit in the plaintiff’s favor. . . . The statutory cause of
    action for vexatious litigation exists under § 52-568, and
    differs from a common-law action only in that a finding
    of malice is not an essential element, but will serve as a
    basis for higher damages.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bernhard-
    Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 
    286 Conn. 548
    , 553–54, 
    944 A.2d 329
    (2008).
    In assessing probable cause in vexatious litigation
    actions against attorneys and law firms, the ‘‘critical
    question [is] whether on the basis of the facts known
    by the law firm, a reasonable attorney familiar with
    Connecticut law would believe he or she had probable
    cause to bring the lawsuit. . . . As is implied by its
    phrasing, the standard is an objective one that is neces-
    sarily dependent on what the attorney knew when he
    or she initiated the lawsuit.’’6 (Citation omitted; internal
    quotation marks omitted.) Embalmers’ Supply Co. v.
    Giannitti, 
    103 Conn. App. 20
    , 35, 
    929 A.2d 729
    , cert.
    denied, 
    284 Conn. 931
    , 
    934 A.2d 246
    (2007).
    ‘‘Whether there is probable cause in a [vexatious liti-
    gation] case is a question of law, upon which our scope
    of review is plenary.’’ Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
    v. Creed, 
    144 Conn. App. 100
    , 116, 
    72 A.3d 1175
    (2013).
    A
    The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the court’s conclu-
    sions regarding the existence of probable cause were
    incorrect and that T&M did not have probable cause
    to initiate and to continue to prosecute the foreclosure
    action because the judgment in the debt collection
    action did not state (1) the amount of debt or (2) the
    amount of prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs also
    argue that T&M lacked probable cause to continue to
    prosecute the foreclosure action after having received
    adverse rulings from various courts that the underlying
    judgment was unenforceable. We are not persuaded.
    1
    The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in its determi-
    nation that T&M had probable cause to pursue the fore-
    closure action because an attorney could not have
    reasonably concluded that the judgment incorporating
    the fact finder’s report was definitive, unambiguous,
    and certain as to amount. We disagree.
    ‘‘To be conclusive on the parties and to terminate
    litigation, a judgment must be definitive and not ambigu-
    ous or uncertain; otherwise it is defective. . . . Partic-
    ularly, [a] money judgment must specify with certainty
    the amount for which it is rendered, or if the amount
    is not stated, it must be ascertainable from the record
    or by mere mathematical computation.’’ (Citations
    omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Part-
    nership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 
    97 Conn. App. 541
    , 560–61 n.19, 
    905 A.2d 1214
    , cert. denied, 
    280 Conn. 943
    , 
    912 A.2d 479
    (2006). In some circumstances, there
    may be some gray area in the determination of whether
    the amount of a judgment is ascertainable from the
    record or by mathematical computation.
    In the foreclosure action, the trial court and the
    Appellate Court disagreed on several occasions with
    T&M’s theory that the judgment was valid. The court,
    Hon. Robert Satter, judge trial referee, granted the
    plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the foreclo-
    sure case on October 15, 2008, reasoning that the under-
    lying judgment in the debt collection case was
    unenforceable because no money judgment had
    entered. Further, this court determined that ‘‘the judg-
    ment entered against the [plaintiffs] on June 19, 2006,
    was not definitive, unambiguous or certain as to the
    amount of damages owed.’’ Unifund CCR Partners v.
    
    Schaeppi, supra
    , 
    126 Conn. App. 382
    . Subsequent to
    that ruling, the trial court, Miller, J., denied Unifund’s
    motion to open, stating that it could not ‘‘open a judg-
    ment that was never really a judgment.’’ This ruling was
    affirmed on appeal. Unifund CCR Partners v. 
    Schaeppi, supra
    , 
    140 Conn. App. 287
    .
    These adverse rulings do not necessarily negate the
    existence of probable cause, nor do the facts underlying
    the judgment lien sought to be foreclosed. ‘‘[P]robable
    cause may be present even where a suit lacks merit.
    Favorable termination of the suit often establishes lack
    of merit, yet the plaintiff in [vexatious litigation] must
    separately show lack of probable cause. . . . The
    lower threshold of probable cause allows attorneys and
    litigants to present issues that are arguably correct,
    even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win . . . .
    Were we to conclude . . . that a claim is unreasonable
    wherever the law would clearly hold for the other side,
    we could stifle the willingness of a lawyer to challenge
    established precedent in an effort to change the law.
    The vitality of our common law system is dependent
    upon the freedom of attorneys to pursue novel, although
    potentially unsuccessful, legal theories.’’ (Citations
    omitted; emphasis altered; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper &
    Alcorn, LLP, 
    281 Conn. 84
    , 103–104, 
    912 A.2d 1019
    (2007).
    An attorney familiar with Connecticut law could have
    examined the events in the record leading to the court’s
    June 19, 2006 judgment and reasonably could have
    believed that it was reasonable to argue that the amount
    of the judgment was ascertainable from the record. The
    first fact finder report stated that ‘‘[a]s of August 29,
    2002, the [plaintiffs] owed AT&T Universal $9,382.05.’’
    (Emphasis added). During the March 27, 2006 hearing,
    held prior to the issuing of the second fact finder report,
    the attorney fact finder stated ‘‘the only issue is whether
    [Unifund] is entitled to collect the debt . . . .’’ (Empha-
    sis added). In the fact finder’s second report, the attor-
    ney fact finder found that there had been a valid
    assignment of the debt to Unifund and that the plaintiffs
    were ‘‘liable to [Unifund] for the amount of the credit
    card charges made on the AT&T Universal Account
    number [in question] with interest.’’ At the hearing fol-
    lowing the second fact finder report, the court, Miller,
    J., stated that the attorney fact finder found that a
    valid assignment had occurred and had recommended
    judgment ‘‘in favor of [Unifund] presumably at the same
    numbers as was set forth in the original fact finder’s
    report.’’ The court, Miller, J., rendered judgment ‘‘in
    accordance with the decision of the fact finder.’’ The
    court, Miller, J., granted Unifund’s motion for weekly
    payments on the debt.
    An attorney reasonably could have deemed it plausi-
    ble that in the first report, the attorney fact finder made
    a factual finding that the amount owed by the plaintiffs
    on the account in question was $9382.05. An attorney
    reasonably could have considered the second report,
    which concluded that the sole issue at that time was
    the validity of the assignment and recommended that
    judgment enter in favor of Unifund as a result of a
    valid assignment. An attorney reasonably could have
    interpreted Judge Miller’s statement at the hearing as
    to the amount of debt and subsequent granting of the
    motion for weekly payments to mean that there had
    been a valid judgment as to the amount of debt owed.7
    An attorney may perhaps not have predicted that the
    effort would be successful, but attorneys, as noted pre-
    viously, are not required to pursue only actions that
    succeed.
    There is no dispute that the plaintiffs owed the debt
    or that the debt was properly assigned to Unifund. T&M
    could have pursued different and perhaps more fruitful
    options. But an attorney in T&M’s position at the time
    the relevant procedural events were happening reason-
    ably could have in good faith chosen to pursue a foreclo-
    sure action on the ultimately quixotic theory that an
    amount of judgment was reasonably ascertainable from
    the prior judgments and fact finder reports that were
    referenced. Though the theory turned out to be faulty,
    its proponent was not so lacking in probable cause to
    be found to have acted vexatiously.
    2
    The plaintiffs next argue that the court improperly
    determined that the defendants had probable cause to
    pursue the foreclosure action because an attorney rea-
    sonably would have realized that a foreclosure action
    lawfully could not be commenced prior to the entry of
    a final judgment in the underlying debt collection case,
    and in this case there had not been a specific determina-
    tion of the amount of prejudgment interest included in
    the judgment.
    The trial court in its memorandum of decision did
    not address the plaintiffs’ final judgment claim, which
    was raised in their posttrial brief. The plaintiffs filed a
    motion to reargue and reconsider on the ground that
    the trial court did not address the final judgment issue.
    The court denied the motion. The plaintiffs did not file
    a motion to review. We ordinarily do not review claims
    that have not been decided by the trial court. See Silver
    v. Holtman, 
    149 Conn. App. 239
    , 254–55, 
    90 A.3d 203
    (‘‘when an issue has not been ruled on by the trial court,
    an appellate court may not review the issue for the first
    time on appeal’’ [emphasis omitted]), cert. denied, 
    312 Conn. 904
    , 
    91 A.3d 906
    (2014).
    We also note, however, that the plaintiffs’ argument
    regarding the lack of a final judgment is misplaced. The
    cases cited by the plaintiffs in support of their argument,
    Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 
    87 Conn. App. 337
    , 344–45,
    
    865 A.2d 500
    , cert. denied, 
    274 Conn. 904
    , 
    876 A.2d 13
    (2005), and IBM Credit Corp. v. Mark Facey & Co., 
    44 Conn. App. 490
    , 493–94, 
    690 A.2d 410
    (1997), advance
    the general principle that appeals can be taken only
    from final judgments.8 Although the question of whether
    an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal
    may be related to the issue of whether T&M had proba-
    ble cause to foreclose, the issues are not identical. The
    lack of a specific amount of prejudgment interest adds
    a degree of imprecision to the judgment, but it does
    not as a matter of law eliminate probable cause, in light
    of the ability to peruse the record of the underlying
    case in order to ascertain the amount of the judgment.
    The judgment lien in itself did not state a specific
    amount of prejudgment interest; it did provide that
    ‘‘Unifund . . . did obtain a judgment in its favor against
    Ellen A. Schaeppi . . . and Ernest A. Schaeppi . . .
    for the sum of $9382.05 principal damages, plus prejudg-
    ment interest as awarded by the court . . . .’’ If the
    record revealed that no prejudgment interest was
    ‘‘awarded by the court,’’ then presumably only the prin-
    cipal amount would constitute the debt subject to the
    judgment lien. An attorney, then, reasonably could have
    attempted to proceed on the theory that the lack of an
    amount of prejudgment interest was not necessarily
    a fatal defect. To the extent, then, that the award of
    prejudgment interest was subject to either clarification
    or elimination, the judgment lien may conceivably have
    been thought to have been amenable to foreclosure.9
    3
    The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in
    determining that T&M had probable cause to continue
    to prosecute the foreclosure action after being put on
    notice that the amount of damages had not been deter-
    mined in the underlying debt collection action. We are
    not persuaded.
    The plaintiffs argue that on numerous occasions
    throughout the litigation in the foreclosure action,
    T&M was ‘‘expressly notified’’ that the judgment in the
    debt collection matter contained no definite amount.
    They claim that T&M ‘‘fabricated’’ an amount of judg-
    ment and continued to prosecute the foreclosure action.
    The plaintiffs contend that Judge Miller’s 2008 ruling
    on the motion to clarify ‘‘makes this abundantly clear.’’10
    In the course of its ruling on the vexatious litigation
    claims, the trial court concluded that T&M had probable
    cause to continue to pursue the foreclosure action11
    and that, despite the adverse rulings by Judge Miller
    and Judge Satter, ‘‘there was no controlling case law
    rendering T&M’s legal theory unreasonable . . . .’’ The
    court cited Oglesby v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,
    
    259 Ky. 620
    , 625, 
    82 S.W.2d 824
    (1935), for the proposi-
    tion that ‘‘pleadings in [a case] may be looked to in aid
    of the judgment, and that the certainty of the latter
    may be obtained from consulting preceding parts of
    the record containing the necessary data therefor.’’ See
    McCarthy v. Warden, 
    213 Conn. 289
    , 293, 
    567 A.2d 1187
    (1989) (court may ‘‘take judicial notice of the court files
    in another suit between the parties’’), cert. denied, 
    496 U.S. 939
    , 
    110 S. Ct. 3220
    , 
    110 L. Ed. 2d 667
    (1990). At
    the time of the initiation and continuing prosecution of
    the foreclosure case, T&M had at least a colorable basis
    for its legal theory—that the amount of the judgment
    could be ascertained by examination of both fact finder
    reports—to support a reasonable belief in probable
    cause.
    The trial court, in ruling on the issue of probable
    cause as to the continuation of the foreclosure proceed-
    ings, determined that ‘‘T&M had reason to believe there
    was probable cause to continue pursuit of the foreclo-
    sure action by attempting to clarify the underlying judg-
    ment inasmuch as its ambiguity was the root of T&M’s
    struggles in the foreclosure action. T&M’s strategy was
    that of an innovative, persistent, and zealous advocate.
    Based upon its legal theory that the judgment amount
    was ascertainable from the record, T&M was justified
    in appealing Judge Satter’s ruling on the [plaintiffs’]
    motion for summary judgment.’’ We agree with the trial
    court in this regard.
    T&M did not lose probable cause to pursue the fore-
    closure action because of adverse rulings along the way.
    The standard for determining probable cause is not
    whether there are adverse rulings by the court or
    whether the claim is ultimately determined to be with-
    out merit. See Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Coo-
    per & Alcorn, 
    LLP, supra
    , 
    281 Conn. 104
    (if claims were
    held unreasonable wherever law clearly held for other
    side, it would stifle attorney’s willingness to challenge
    established precedent or pursue novel, although poten-
    tially unsuccessful, legal theories). Rather, the standard
    is whether the defendant in a vexatious litigation action
    had ‘‘knowledge of facts, actual or apparent, strong
    enough to justify a reasonable man in the belief that
    he has lawful grounds for prosecuting the defendant in
    the manner complained of.’’ (Internal quotation marks
    omitted.) DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 
    220 Conn. 225
    ,
    256, 
    597 A.2d 807
    (1991). For the reasons stated in part
    II A 1 and 2 of this opinion, T&M had probable cause to
    initiate the foreclosure action and, for the same reasons,
    had probable cause to continue prosecution.
    B
    On cross appeal, T&M claims that the court erred in
    concluding that T&M lacked probable cause to appeal
    from Judge Miller’s denial of its motion to open the
    judgment. We agree.
    On the issues of the motion to open and the appeal
    therefrom, the court ruled as follows: ‘‘After the Appel-
    late Court affirmed Judge Satter’s summary judgment
    ruling, T&M pursued a different, and perhaps more cre-
    ative, strategy in order to remedy the underlying judg-
    ment in the debt collection action that the Appellate
    Court deemed defective. T&M sought to open the under-
    lying judgment in the debt collection action based upon
    the theory that there had been a mutual mistake
    between the parties, to wit: a judgment had entered
    without a specific dollar amount because Unifund, the
    [plaintiffs], and the court believed the judgment to
    include a specific amount of damages. Based upon this
    mutual mistake, T&M asked the court to use its equita-
    ble powers to open the judgment so that it could be
    remanded to the original fact finder so that a specific
    amount of damages could be found in the debt collec-
    tion action. . . . At first blush, T&M’s motion to open
    judgment may appear to be duplicative of its previous
    motion seeking clarification of the debt collection judg-
    ment. . . . The two motions, however, sought two fun-
    damentally different forms of relief from the court. In
    seeking clarification, T&M asked Judge Miller to clarify
    the amount of the judgment. The court, Miller, J., pre-
    sumably declined to [do] so because a court does not
    have the power to find additional facts or different facts
    than a fact finder; rather, a court has the option of
    remanding the matter to the fact finder for further find-
    ings. In contrast to the motion to clarify, T&M’s motion
    to open judgment invoked the equitable powers of the
    court to remand the case back to the fact finder, which
    is fundamentally different from asking the court itself
    to articulate the amount of the judgment. It is with
    these considerations in mind that this court finds that
    T&M had probable cause to move to open the underly-
    ing judgment in the debt collection action. Given the
    law and facts known to T&M, this was an aggressive,
    but nevertheless innovative, tactic to use in order to
    vindicate the interests of its client, Unifund, and seek
    judgment in its favor.
    ‘‘The court, however, is not persuaded that T&M had
    probable cause to pursue an appeal of Judge Miller’s
    denial of T&M’s motion to open judgment for the rea-
    sons that follow. In ruling on the motion to open judg-
    ment, the court, Miller, J., stated: Judge Satter has ruled
    that any judgment ever obtained in this case was fatally
    defective, because the [f]act[f]inder who heard the orig-
    inal collection claim did not recommend judgment in
    a specific dollar amount. This court does not have the
    ability to open a judgment that was never, really a judg-
    ment. . . . While it was a creative approach to move
    to open the underlying judgment, at this point, Judge
    Miller had made it painstakingly clear that a motion to
    open judgment could not be used as a mechanism by
    which to correct an order that was never legally a judg-
    ment. And, predictably, the Appellate Court agreed,
    finding that Judge Miller did not abuse his discretion
    in denying the motion to open judgment inasmuch as
    the Appellate Court has previously agreed that there
    was never a valid judgment in the underlying . . . debt
    collection action to begin with. Unifund CCR Partners
    v. 
    Schaeppi, supra
    , 
    140 Conn. App. 286
    –87. Further-
    more, the court finds that there was no probable cause
    for T&M to have raised its other argument in the second
    appeal, namely, that even if the underlying judgment
    was defective, Judge Miller’s order of installment pay-
    ments is a valid judgment and therefore Judge Miller
    abused his discretion in declining to open it. In the first
    appeal, the Appellate Court had already held that the
    order for weekly payments was entered more than three
    weeks after [Unifund] recorded the judgment lien. As
    a result, it is impossible, regardless of whether the order
    was a money judgment . . . for the validity of the judg-
    ment lien to be grounded in the September 11, 2006
    order. Unifund CCR Partners v 
    Schaeppi, supra
    , 
    126 Conn. App. 382
    –83. Additionally, as the Appellate Court
    noted in the second appeal, T&M’s contention that a
    subsequent entry of an order for weekly payments could
    remedy a defective judgment is simply logically untena-
    ble and that there is absolutely no legal authority for
    such a proposition. Unifund CCR Partners v. 
    Schaeppi, supra
    , [287–88]. Thus, there was also no probable cause
    to raise that argument. Based upon these considera-
    tions, the court concludes that T&M lacked probable
    cause to pursue a second appeal to the Appellate
    Court.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    The trial court properly concluded that T&M had
    probable cause to pursue the novel theory of a motion
    to open.12 However, because T&M had probable cause
    to pursue the motion to open, it also had probable cause
    to pursue an appeal; to hold to the contrary would be
    inconsistent. Although Judge Miller denied the motion
    to open and, in doing so, clearly stated that the judgment
    was fatally defective, the standard for probable cause
    in a vexatious litigation action does not depend on the
    meritorious nature of a claim. As recited previously in
    part II A 1 of this opinion, ‘‘[f]avorable termination of
    the suit often establishes lack of merit, yet the plaintiff
    in [vexatious litigation] must separately show lack of
    probable cause. . . . The lower threshold of probable
    cause allows attorneys and litigants to present issues
    that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely
    that they will win . . . . Were we to conclude . . .
    that a claim is unreasonable wherever the law would
    clearly hold for the other side, we could stifle the will-
    ingness of a lawyer to challenge established precedent
    in an effort to change the law. The vitality of our com-
    mon law system is dependent upon the freedom of
    attorneys to pursue novel, although potentially unsuc-
    cessful, legal theories.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Falls
    Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, 
    LLP, supra
    , 
    281 Conn. 103
    –104. Even though T&M received
    a clearly worded adverse ruling in the trial court on the
    motion to open, and, at the time of the filing of the
    appeal, it was not likely that it would prevail, T&M did
    not thereby lack probable cause to pursue the appeal
    from the denial of the motion to open.13 An attorney
    reasonably could have concluded that the theory was
    untested and, therefore, that pursuing the appeal was
    reasonable. General Statutes § 52-263 provides a right
    of appeal to parties, such as T&M, that have been
    aggrieved by decisions of a trial court.14 T&M, then, had
    probable cause to pursue the appeal from the denial of
    the motion to open.
    The judgment is reversed only as to the conclusion
    that T&M lacked probable cause to pursue an appeal
    from the denial of the motion to open and as to the
    award of damages, and the case is remanded with direc-
    tion to render judgment in favor of T&M. The judgment
    is affirmed in all other respects.
    In this opinion the other judges concurred.
    1
    The plaintiffs also claim that the court erred in its award of damages
    and that the case should be remanded for a new trial as to compensatory
    and punitive damages. The trial court’s award of damages was based on its
    conclusion that T&M lacked probable cause only to pursue an appeal from
    the denial of its motion to open the judgment in the foreclosure action.
    Because we agree with T&M’s claim on cross appeal that the court erred
    in concluding that T&M lacked probable cause as to any portion of the
    prior foreclosure proceeding, we necessarily reverse the court’s award of
    damages. Thus, we have no need to address this claim.
    The plaintiffs further claim that the court erred in finding that T&M did
    not act with malice. Malice is an element of the common-law cause of action
    for vexatious litigation. Malice is not an element of the statutory cause of
    action for vexatious litigation, but a finding of malice may act as a multiplier
    of damages. Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 
    286 Conn. 548
    , 554, 
    944 A.2d 329
    (2008). Because we conclude that want of
    probable cause, an essential element of both statutory and common-law
    causes of action, is lacking, thereby defeating any claim of vexatious litiga-
    tion, we need not determine whether the trial court properly found that the
    element of malice was not proved.
    2
    In its December 18, 2013 decision, the court, Hon. Robert F. Stengel,
    judge trial referee, found that Unifund was in the business of purchasing
    distressed consumer debt. T&M had provided legal representation to Unifund
    since 1999 and had handled a significant number of collection cases on
    behalf of Unifund.
    3
    Notably, the report provides in relevant part: ‘‘[Unifund] and the [plain-
    tiffs] agree that the [plaintiffs] entered into an agreement with AT&T Univer-
    sal on July 13, 1992 and were issued an AT&T Universal Credit Card with
    the account number [in question] . . . . The parties do not dispute that the
    [plaintiffs] used the credit card and made purchases thereon. As of August
    29, 2002, the [plaintiffs] owed AT&T Universal $9,382.05.’’
    4
    The judgment lien stated in relevant part: ‘‘[Unifund] . . . did obtain a
    judgment in its favor against [the plaintiffs] . . . for the sum of $9,382.05
    principal damages, plus prejudgment interest as awarded by the court, and
    costs of suit, upon which judgment remains a principal balance, in addition
    to interest which continues to accrue at the statutory rate . . . .’’
    5
    General Statutes § 52-568 provides: ‘‘Any person who commences and
    prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name
    or the name of others, or asserts a defense to any civil action or complaint
    commenced and prosecuted by another (1) without probable cause, shall
    pay such other person double damages, or (2) without probable cause, and
    with a malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble such other person, shall
    pay him treble damages.’’
    6
    Probable cause, of course, can be lost during the course of an action.
    See, e.g., DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 
    220 Conn. 225
    , 248, 
    597 A.2d 807
    (1991) (there may be liability for vexatious ‘‘initiation, continuation or
    procurement of civil proceedings’’ [emphasis added; internal quotation
    marks omitted]).
    7
    The plaintiffs also claim that T&M is precluded by the doctrines of
    collateral estoppel and res judicata from arguing the existence of probable
    cause. They contend that because Judge Miller ruled in 2008, in the course
    of denying the motion for clarification, that T&M should have been aware
    that the judgment in the debt collection action did not contain an amount
    of debt, T&M is now barred from relitigating the issue of probable cause.
    ‘‘Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a
    claim that has already been decided on the merits. Collateral estoppel, or
    issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been
    determined in a prior suit. . . . Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is distin-
    guishable from collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. Under the doctrine
    of res judicata, a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute
    bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with
    them, upon the same claim. . . . In contrast, collateral estoppel precludes a
    party from relitigating issues and facts actually and necessarily determined
    in an earlier proceeding between the same parties or those in privity with
    them upon a different claim.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 
    52 Conn. App. 454
    , 460, 
    726 A.2d 1170
    ,
    cert. denied, 
    248 Conn. 922
    , 
    733 A.2d 845
    (1999).
    The trial court has made no ruling regarding these doctrines; thus, the
    claim is not reviewable. See, e.g., Koehm v. Kuhn, 
    18 Conn. App. 313
    , 314
    n.2, 
    557 A.2d 933
    (1989). We note, however, that the doctrines of res judicata
    and collateral estoppel are inapplicable. Judge Miller never made a ruling
    in the foreclosure action as to the merits of the issue of probable cause in
    the plaintiffs’ vexatious litigation claim. Even if the trial court were to have
    done so, such a ruling would be dicta, because the issue of probable cause
    was not before the court. An ultimate adverse ruling is a separate question
    from whether it was reasonable, however forlornly, to pursue the ultimately
    losing cause.
    8
    The plaintiffs apparently seek to argue that T&M lacked probable cause
    in the foreclosure action because the judgment in the debt collection action
    was not a ‘‘full and final judgment’’ and thus not a valid judgment on which
    to foreclose. An attorney in T&M’s position reasonably could have taken
    into consideration the fact that this court in fact considered the merits of
    an appeal from the same judgment and did not dismiss the appeal for lack
    of a final judgment. See Unifund CCR Partners v. 
    Schaeppi, supra
    , 
    126 Conn. App. 370
    . The relevant inquiry is what an attorney reasonably would
    know at the time the action was taken. See Embalmers’ Supply Co. v.
    
    Giannitti, supra
    , 
    103 Conn. App. 35
    .
    9
    We by no means encourage or approve of the approach actually taken by
    T&M. We do recognize, however, that judgment awards may be ascertainable
    from underlying records and that our policy, as stated previously, appears
    to avoid penalizing creativity.
    10
    In denying [Unifund’s motion for clarification] Judge Miller stated:
    ‘‘Clearly, the judgment should not have been allowed to enter without a
    finite dollar amount. This is something which [T&M] should have picked
    up on at several readily definable points in the process, the first of which
    being upon seeing the decisions, there isn’t a dollar amount.’’
    11
    The court concluded that T&M had probable cause to pursue the action
    until its appeal from the denial of the motion to open.
    12
    We agree with T&M that there was probable cause to pursue the motion
    to open on the ground of mutual mistake. We express no opinion as to
    whether the alternative ground, regarding weekly payments, was supported
    by probable cause.
    13
    On the facts that appear in the record, it is not entirely implausible to
    posit that both sides had thought that the amount of the judgment was
    sufficiently ascertainable at the time of its entry.
    14
    Section 52-263 provides: ‘‘Upon the trial of all matters of fact in any
    cause or action in the Superior Court, whether to the court or jury, or before
    any judge thereof when the jurisdiction of any action or proceeding is vested
    in him, if either party is aggrieved by the decision of the court or judge
    upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial, including the
    denial of a motion to set aside a verdict, he may appeal to the court having
    jurisdiction from the final judgment of the court or of such judge, or from
    the decision of the court granting a motion to set aside a verdict, except
    in small claims cases, which shall not be appealable, and appeals as provided
    in sections 8-8 and 8-9.’’