Krasko v. Konkos
314 A.3d 34
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The plaintiffs owned property in Easton, Connecticut, with a right-of-way easement over the defendants' neighboring property.
- A utility pole owned by Frontier obstructed the plaintiffs' access and needed to be relocated, necessitating upgrades to the defendants' electrical connection.
- The parties' attorneys participated in a pretrial conference and attempted settlement negotiations, but the parties themselves did not attend in person.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a supposed oral settlement agreement reached during the pretrial, submitting a drafted exhibit (Exhibit A) outlining what they believed was agreed upon.
- Defendants denied any final agreement was reached, pointing to ongoing negotiations and material unresolved terms.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, modifying some terms from Exhibit A, and the defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of enforceable settlement | Parties reached an agreement at pretrial | No clear, final, or mutual agreement was reached | No clear and unambiguous agreement; no enforceable K |
| Whether summary enforcement proper | Enforcement proper under Audubon doctrine | Lack of clear terms & ongoing material disagreements | Trial court abused discretion; summary enforcement improper |
| Modification of terms by court | Court could clarify or supplement agreement | Court cannot impose unagreed material terms | Improper for court to add/substitute disputed terms |
| Evidence supporting agreement | Exhibit A memorialized agreement | Exhibit A just one-sided proposal, not mutual assent | Record lacked evidence of mutual assent to settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (trial court can enforce settlement when terms are clear and unambiguous)
- Reiner v. Reiner, 190 Conn. App. 268 (party must prove existence of binding settlement agreement with clear and certain terms)
- Wittman v. Intense Movers, Inc., 202 Conn. App. 87 (trial court can enforce settlements but must base decision on clear evidence of agreement)
- Rosenblit v. Laschever, 115 Conn. App. 282 (existence of a contract is a factual question; no binding agreement without a true meeting of minds)
- Vance v. Tassmer, 128 Conn. App. 101 (courts do not rewrite settlements; can only enforce undisputed, clear terms)