Lovetere v. Cole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** JOHN A. LOVETERE ET AL. v. HAROLD E. COLE (AC 30355) Beach, Alvord and Borden, Js. Argued October 29 officially released December 29, 2009 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Pickard, J.) Andrew W. Skolnick, with whom, on the brief, was Catherine A. Cuggino, for the appellant (defendant). William C. Franklin, for the appellees (plaintiffs). Opinion PER CURIAM. This is an action to quiet title and for slander of title brought by the plaintiffs, John A. Lovetere and Nancy D. Lovetere, against the defendant, Harold E. Cole, an adjoining landowner. After a trial to the court, the court found that the plaintiffs held record title to the land in question and that the defendant had committed statutory slander of title by recklessly recording a deed that he knew was false, with the sole purpose of slandering the plaintiffs title. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment quieting title in the plaintiffs and awarding damages for slander of title. The defendant has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The defendant does not challenge any of the findings or conclusions of the court on the merits of the case. His sole claim on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiffs pretrial motion to preclude the expert testimony of an attorney whom the defendant had engaged to search the titles of the parties properties. The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion because (1) he had made adequate disclosure of the expert, (2) the expert was retained and disclosed within a reasonable time prior to trial, (3) the disclosure did not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs, (4) the disclosure did not cause undue interference with the orderly progress of the trial, (5) there was no bad faith delay on the part of the defendant in disclosing the expert and (6) the court s sanction was disproportionate to the claimed violation of the discovery rules. The plaintiffs respond that (1) the absence of an articulation by the court of its decision to preclude the defendant s expert witness precludes appellate review of the decision, (2) the expert witness was not properly disclosed, (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the expert from testifying and (4) any error was harmless because the record does not establish what, if anything, the purported witness opinion would have been. We have fully considered the entire record, the claims of the defendant and the responses of the plaintiffs. We conclude that the court s ruling was well within its discretion and, furthermore, that there is nothing in the record to indicate what, if anything, the expert s opinion would have been had the court ruled otherwise. Ordinarily, an appellant must show, not only that the court made an improper ruling, but also that the impropriety was serious enough to require reversal of the judgment and a new trial. [E]ven if a court has acted improperly in connection with the introduction of evidence, reversal of a judgment is not necessarily mandated because there must not only be an evidentiary [impropriety], there also must be harm. . . . In the absence of a showing that the [excluded] evidence would have affected the final result, its exclusion is harmless. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 292 Conn. 150, 161, 971 A.2d 676 (2009). Therefore, we have absolutely no basis for reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial. The judgment is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
