215 Conn.App. 504
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (John Doe and Bob Doe) sued defendant Bruce Bemer for sexual contact/exploitation that occurred when plaintiffs were minors; cases were consolidated and later settled.
- Parties executed confidential settlement agreements containing confidentiality clauses and a "Consent to Reinstate Action to the Docket" waiver: if defendant defaulted, parties consented to reinstatement for enforcement and waived objections to the four‑month rule of § 52‑212a.
- Plaintiffs withdrew the action on November 15, 2019. The court later placed the case on a "settled but not withdrawn" list, but did not restore it to the docket.
- After the defendant missed a payment (April 2020), plaintiffs moved to restore the case; defendant objected, asserting plaintiffs (and plaintiffs’ counsel) had breached confidentiality and that defendant therefore was not in default and the motion was untimely under § 52‑212a.
- The trial court denied the motion to restore (finding each side alleged the other breached and concluding no legal basis to restore), denied reargument/reconsideration, and—after plaintiffs appealed—marked off and stayed the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlements because of the pending appeal. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was denying the motion to restore an abuse of discretion? | Waiver in settlements removed the four‑month limit, so the case should be restored and settlements enforced. | Waiver only applies if defendant was in default; plaintiffs (or counsel) breached confidentiality before defendant's nonpayment, so defendant was not in default and motion is untimely. | Affirmed. Court reasonably denied restoration: record showed competing breach claims, no finding defendant in default, and plaintiffs did not seek articulation. |
| 2) Was denial of reargument/reconsideration improper? | Trial court overlooked the waiver language and misapplied law. | Trial court could reasonably reject waiver application given factual disputes about breach. | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion because denial of the motion to restore was proper. |
| 3) Was an Audubon hearing required to determine enforceability of the settlements? | Plaintiffs were ready to present testimony and the court should have held an Audubon hearing to summarily enforce the agreements. | Audubon applies only when a case is on the docket and terms are not disputed; here restoration (not enforceability) was the issue and material disputes existed. | Held: Audubon inapplicable. Court properly declined an Audubon hearing because action was not restored and factual disputes existed. |
| 4) Could the court refuse to rule on the motion to enforce or deny terminating the appellate stay? | Court lacked authority to mark off or not decide the motion to enforce; plaintiffs sought termination of stay to permit adjudication. | Once the action remained withdrawn (not restored), there was no pending matter to adjudicate; appeals procedure mandates stay. | Affirmed. Court properly marked off/stayed enforcement motion because no pending case existed; appellate review of stay decision was unavailable on direct appeal here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993) (trial court may summarily enforce a settlement in the original action when terms are clear, unambiguous, and not disputed)
- Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Cotrone, 178 Conn. App. 415 (2017) (a motion to restore opens a withdrawal; § 52‑212a’s four‑month rule applies to restoration)
- Reiner v. Reiner, 190 Conn. App. 268 (2019) (explains Audubon procedure and that summary enforcement requires no factual dispute about agreement terms)
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 276 Conn. 168 (2005) (trial court retains limited continuing jurisdiction post‑withdrawal/judgment to modify or vacate equitable orders such as protective orders or injunctions)
- Palumbo v. Barbadimos, 163 Conn. App. 100 (2016) (denial or grant of motion to restore is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Hebert, 105 Conn. App. 736 (2008) (withdrawals are analogous to final judgments; § 52‑212a exceptions for fraud, mutual mistake apply to restoration)