2007 Ct. Sup. 1799
No. CV 00-0072150 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
January 30, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
KLACZAK, LAWRENCE C., J.T.R.
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (#188).
This long standing dispute commenced in January 2000 when the plaintiffs (ACE), sought to enjoin the defendants from using a twenty-acre pond in the town of Willington and seeking damages from the defendants for their unlawful use of the pond for over six years. Our Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had ownership rights to the pond and that the defendants’ use of the pond was unlawful. Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Buccino, 273 Conn. 217 (2005). That decision left the issue of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs for the trespass of the defendants.
Although both sides were represented by counsel, an attempt to reach a settlement was made in a meeting between John Patton, a director of ACE, and Jerzy Debski, who purportedly spoke for all defendants including Peter Latincsics and the Hall Pond Fly Fishing Club, Inc. without the attorneys being present. (The named defendant Thomas Buccino, his wife Irma Buccino and Willington Industries, Inc., entered into a stipulated judgment with ACE and are no longer involved with this case.)
At the meeting the two principals orally agreed to a settlement of $12,500 to be paid to ACE by the defendants. There was no discussion as to any other terms or conditions including whether or not the defendants could use a “public beach” area of the pond as could other residents of Willington, or, if they should join the fish club which had rights to the pond and use the pond as a member thereof.
The two principals at the meeting did agree that their attorneys would prepare the necessary documentation to memorialize the $12,500 settlement and each party did report to their respective attorneys.
Each attorney prepared a release and they mailed the releases to each CT Page 1800 other at approximately the same time. They appeared to have crossed in the mail.
Defendants’ counsel sent a proposed release entitled “General Release,” consisting of one page, which did, in fact use general release language. (Plaintiffs’ exhibit A.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a proposed release of six pages which included, inter alia, language totally prohibiting the defendants, their agents, representatives, employees, heirs, successors, assignees, tenants, licensees, guests, etc. from entering or using any part of the pond. (Plaintiff’s exhibit B.)
Defendants’ counsel returned a marked up, unsigned, proposed agreement eliminating the language he deemed objectionable. (Plaintiffs’ exhibit C.) In turn, plaintiffs’ counsel insisted on keeping the restrictive use provisions. (Plaintiffs’ exhibit D.) This led to a counter-proposal by defense counsel (Plaintiffs’ exhibit E) and a further counter-proposal from defense counsel. (Plaintiffs’ exhibit F.)
These proposals and counter-proposals were not signed and no agreement was entered in court.
While the Court has the authority to enforce a settlement agreement, the terms of the agreement must be clear, unambiguous and not in dispute. Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences, Inc. v. Connecticut Constitution Associates Limited Partnership, 260 Conn. 598, 609-10
(2002).
The plaintiff argues that the parties had agreed to the essential terms of the settlement, namely the payment of $12,500, and that the prohibition against going on the pond was merely stating the defendants would not trespass, which by law, they were prohibited from doing anyway.
The Court does not agree with that interpretation. The proposed language would prohibit the defendants from using the public beach or using the pond as members of the fish club, which has access rights to the pond. The proposed language would not only bar the defendants, but their family members and guests as well.
These are significant terms upon which there was not an agreement.
Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. CT Page 1801