Santoro v. Santoro
132 Conn. App. 41
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Deborah Santoro sought dissolution of marriage with Glenn Santoro; trial resolved custody and financial issues.
- Court dissolved marriage on February 18, 2009 and awarded Deborah sole ownership of All Risk, Inc., with a promissory note to Glenn for $255,000 payable over seven years.
- The memorandum of decision prohibited competition but refused a non-compete/nonsolicitation order; allowed a setoff provision if Glenn solicited in Danbury area.
- The note stated that if Glenn, within 15 months, solicited insurance to any person or business in Danbury or contiguous towns, Deborah could set off up to five quarterly payments plus fees.
- Deborah moved for an order alleging Glenn violated the order by soliciting in Danbury to North Street Properties, LLC, DGS Realty, LLC, and himself; hearing held July 21, 2010; motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether North Street Properties constitutes prohibited solicitation | Santoro argues North Street is within Danbury and thus covered by the order. | Santoro contends the 15-month, 'solicit' language was not intended to bar this transaction. | No violation; order not limited to partial ownership scenarios. |
| Whether DGS Realty, LLC fell within the order's scope | Santoro asserts any Danbury-area business owned by defendant is barred. | Santoro contends ownership and LLC structure create no bar to sale under the order. | No violation; the court did not intend to prevent sales to a company solely owned by defendant. |
| Whether selling to himself violated the order | Santoro claims self-purchase of insurance within the Danbury area breached the order. | Santoro argues the order targets third-party solicitations, not self-purchases. | No violation; 'solicit' targets seeking to obtain business from others, not self-purchases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bauer v. Bauer, 130 Conn.App. 185 (2011) (interpretation of orders should reflect the court's evident intent)
- State v. Salmond, 69 Conn.App. 81 (2002) (plenary review of written instruments; contextual interpretation)
- State v. Olson, 115 Conn.App. 806 (2009) (adequacy of record for appeal when record is incomplete)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, 62 Conn.App. 828 (2001) (movant bears burden to show existence of order and noncompliance)
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527 (2002) (dictionary-based interpretation of terms in contracts or orders)
- Niehaus v. Cowles Busi. Media Inc., 263 Conn. 178 (2003) (plenary review applies to questions of law)