Harp v. King

835 A.2d 953 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an African-American real estate developer and architect who owns and manages seven low and moderate-income housing developments financed by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA). King (D) was the president and executive director of CHFA. Flynn (D) and Pilcher (D) each served as assistant counsel to CHFA and Regina Rentz (D) was an internal auditor for CHFA. P's developments began to encounter some financial instability. By 1994, several of the developments did not generate enough income to meet expenses. P addressed the shortfall by loaning the developments in excess of one million dollars. All mortgage payments were made to CHFA in a timely manner. P requested that CHFA agree to restructure the financing of four of the seven developments. P asked CHFA for a reduction in the interest rate on the loans on those developments or, alternatively, for an extended term within which to satisfy the loans, thereby reducing his monthly debt service obligation. After looking at P’s operations those within CHFA began to express concerns over management issues such as 'systematic and deliberate overcharging' for services rendered by other entities controlled by P. These concerns were not discussed with P. On the outside, independent sources confirmed that things were ok with P’s properties. CHFA contracted with Rockwell Management Group, Inc. (Rockwell), to assist in reviewing the management procedures and systems employed by P. Rockwell highlighted certain deficiencies in those areas. CHFA required P to correct the maintenance deficiencies in the developments within seven months. Rockwell submitted its final report stating that 'if present management practices are continued, further financial/cash flow and maintenance difficulties will be created, existing problems will be obscured and exacerbated, and the properties will continue to deteriorate physically.' Friction quickly developed and because P was black, he claimed he was being treated differently. P filed a FOIA request During the document inspection P came across two internal memoranda. One was labeled 'litigation strategy' and the other was labeled 'strategy.' Both were stamped 'privileged and confidential.' According to P, the legal strategies memoranda outline a scheme to remove P as the managing agent for P's developments and, ultimately, to take those developments away from him, by falsely accusing him of financial improprieties and discrediting him publicly. P requested a photocopy of each. His request was denied. P sued Ds. P sought copies of the legal strategies memoranda in that the disclosure of the legal strategies memoranda to him in connection with his freedom of information request constituted a waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect to those memoranda. Ds claim that an inadvertent disclosure of the memoranda did not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. P moved to compel disclosure. The trial court held there had been no waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Ds moved for summary judgment. It was granted and P appealed.