Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 47 — LAND AND LAND TITLES · Chapter 821 — Land Titles
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-33j (2026)

Notice not to be recorded to slander title. Damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person may use the privilege of recording notices under sections 47-33f and 47-33g for the purpose of slandering the title to land. In any action brought for the purpose of quieting title to land, if the court finds that any person has recorded a claim for that purpose only, the court shall award the plaintiff all the costs of the action, including such attorneys' fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff, and in addition, shall decree that the defendant asserting the claim shall pay to the plaintiff all damages the plaintiff may have sustained as the result of such notice of claim having been so recorded.

(1967, P.A. 553, S. 9; P.A. 79-602, S. 48.)

History: P.A. 79-602 restated provisions and added specific references to Secs. 47-33f and 47-33g.

Cited. 183 C. 59; 219 C. 81; 239 C. 199.

Cited. 3 CA 550; 31 CA 87; 44 CA 683; 46 CA 525. Plaintiff was not required to prove that it demanded that defendants release the mortgages in order to prove slander of title. 144 CA 624. Sec. 52-577 provides appropriate limitations period for slander of title claim under section, and limitations period begins to run at occurrence of act complained of, in this case, at recording of deed and survey. 185 CA 627.

Cited. 34 CS 31.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 76 A.3d 636 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 76 A.3d 636 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 13× “Calpitano, appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Fountain Pointe, LLC, that declared invalid the defendants’ mortgages on a certain piece of real property and found that they had committed slander of title in violation of General Statutes §…”
Dowling v. Heirs of Bond, 345 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 13× “General Statutes § 47-33j provides: ‘‘No person may use the privilege of recording notices under sections 47-33f and 47-33g for the purpose of slandering the title to land.”
Chamerda v. Opie, 197 A.3d 982 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “See General Statutes § 47-33j. 11 Given the defendants' admissions that the purpose of the deed and survey was to *645 confer on Opie the ability to call into legal question the validity of Nemeth's title whenever he so chose to do so, i.”
Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 757 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 47-33j provides: “Notice not to be recorded to slander title.”
Dean v. Riley, 623 A.2d 521 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “Dean, appeal from the judgment rendered for the defendants in the plaintiffs’ action to quiet title in a claimed right-of-way over the defendants’ land and to obtain damages, including attorney’s fees and compensatory damages, pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33j. 1 The…”
Bird Peak Road Ass'n v. Bird Peak Corp., 771 A.2d 260 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “II The corporation also asserts that we should remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of its claims of trespass and slander of title.”
Mandes v. Godiksen, 747 A.2d 47 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “Mandes, brought this action (1) to quiet title, (2) for slander of title pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33j and (3) for damages.”
Murphy v. Rosen, 351 Conn. 120 (Conn. 2025). · cites it 2× “5 The plaintiff raises a new claim that he is entitled to redress because the posting on Southbury’s Facebook page is analogous to slandering the title to land pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33j. We decline to address this claim, as it was not raised before the trial court…”
Battistelli v. Corso, 304 A.2d 676 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). · cites it 3× “The court, however, must find that the plaintiff has failed to sustain her burden of proof to show that in placing the “binder” upon the land records the defendant did so with the intent and purpose of “slandering the title” to the plaintiff’s land under General Statutes §…”
Couloute v. Hunt, Leibert, Chester & Jacobson, LLC, 295 B.R. 689 (D. Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “In this suit Plaintiff seeks damages for 1) slander of title pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47-33j; and 2) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn.”
CHFA–Small Props., Inc. v. Elazazy (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “2 The distinction between those similar counts is that the third count incorporates the allegations of the common-law slander of title action set forth in the second count and then further alleges a violation under General Statutes § 47-33j of the Marketable Title Act.”
Scheinman v. Glass & Braus (D. Conn. 2020). “The tort, originally available at common law, has been codified by section 47-33j, which prohibits the “use [of] the privilege of recording notices .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.