Hogan v. Lagosz
124 Conn. App. 602
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- plaintiffs purchased two vacant lots (Lot 27 Norton Lane and Lot 28A Norton Lane) in Berlin; parcel is landlocked and adjacent to defendant's parcel.
- plaintiffs contend the parcel is subject to a 20' access easement to Norton Lane; defendant allegedly obstructed a gate across the right-of-way.
- the deed conveyed 'all rights of way to the roadway, known as Norton Lane,' prompting a warranty claim against sellers.
- settlement discussions occurred March 5, 2008 in court; parties reached an agreement in principle and intended a written stipulation and map.
- after the courtroom meeting, Guilmartin modified the survey to reflect the agreed right-of-way; defense attorney Bassett drafted an Essential Terms document signed by all attorneys.
- the trial court later enforced the agreement as a binding settlement, determining Bassett had apparent authority and the terms were clear; defendant appeals asserting lack of apparent authority and mutual mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bassett had apparent authority to sign for Lagosz | Hogan asserts Bassett acted with Lagosz's authorization. | Lagosz argues Bassett lacked authority to bind her to a settlement. | Yes; the court's finding of apparent authority was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the settlement agreement was summarily enforceable given the terms for the right-of-way | The agreement clearly describes the right-of-way location and related obligations. | The terms are not sufficiently definite to enforce without further documentation. | Yes; the agreement was clear and unambiguous and summarily enforceable. |
| Whether mutual mistake invalidates the agreement | No mutual mistake; terms were clear and intended to settle the dispute. | Mutual mistake as to material facts could render the contract unenforceable. | No; record inadequate to review mutual mistake; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Tobias, 262 Conn. 844 (2003) (apparent authority is a fact-intensive inquiry)
- Yale Univ. v. Out of the Box, LLC, 118 Conn.App. 800 (2010) (apparent authority not merely from retaining a lawyer)
- Willow Funding Co., L.P. v. Grencom Associates, 63 Conn.App. 832 (2001) (binding agreement may exist even with ongoing negotiations to clarify terms)
- Poole v. Waterbury, 266 Conn. 68 (2003) (contract interpretation based on language and context)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (2009) (proper inquiry focuses on face of agreement and fair interpretation)