189 Conn. App. 828
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- DOT condemned Teresa Lagosz’s 11.64-acre property; $420,000 was deposited as compensation and Lagosz appealed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-76 claiming the amount was inadequate.
- The parties mediated three times; DOT says parties orally agreed that total compensation would be $600,000 (i.e., $180,000 additional) and that Lagosz and her husband would vacate without occupancy charges.
- Draft written settlement agreements were prepared but Lagosz refused to sign, discharged counsel, and elected self-representation.
- The trial court ordered an Audubon hearing to determine whether an enforceable settlement had been reached; testimony from former counsel, DOT representatives, and Lagosz’s husband was that $600,000 had been agreed.
- The court found a binding settlement for $600,000 and entered judgment; Lagosz appealed arguing (1) essential terms (relocation expenses) were omitted and (2) the Audubon hearing testimony was ambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a summarily enforceable settlement existed | DOT: parties agreed to $600,000 in compensation; court confirmation at mediation supports enforcement | Lagosz: oral agreement lacked essential terms (relocation expenses), so unenforceable | Enforceable — only essential term for §13a-76 was amount of compensation ($600,000) |
| Whether relocation expenses were an essential term | DOT: relocation expenses are separate and outside §13a-76 eminent-domain reassessment | Lagosz: relocation reimbursement was part of the settlement and essential | Not essential — relocation claims governed by separate statutes/regulatory process, outside scope of §13a-76 |
| Whether testimony at Audubon hearing was too ambiguous to support finding of agreement | DOT: witnesses (former counsel, DOT reps, husband) consistently confirmed $600,000 agreement | Lagosz: testimony about relocation and other matters showed ambiguity about terms | Not clearly erroneous — sufficient, consistent testimony supported the court’s factual finding of a $600,000 agreement |
| Whether Lagosz was deprived of due process by summary enforcement | DOT: Audubon process afforded Lagosz opportunity to be heard; summary enforcement preserves settlement integrity | Lagosz: entitled to trial on just compensation and lacked sufficient notice/process | Due process satisfied — Audubon hearing provided meaningful opportunity to be heard; enforcing a reported settlement is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (Conn. 1993) (trial court may summarily enforce clear settlement agreements reported during litigation)
- Janus Films, Inc. v. Miller, 801 F.2d 578 (2d Cir. 1986) (policy favoring summary enforcement to preserve judicial resources and settlement integrity)
- Commissioner of Transp. v. Larobina, 92 Conn. App. 15 (Conn. App. 2005) (scope of §13a-76 reassessment limited to damages for taking)
- Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1919) (due process requires opportunity to be heard in compensation determinations)
- Nanni v. Dino Corp., 117 Conn. App. 61 (Conn. App. 2009) (oral settlements/reported settlements can be binding despite lack of written signed agreement)
- Commissioner of Transp. v. Rocky Mountain, LLC, 277 Conn. 696 (Conn. 2006) (relocation assistance and disputes governed by state relocation statutes and administrative process)