Valle v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 3:16-cv-00277

Background

Two related pro se suits about foreclosure/debt collection on the same Hartford property: ValleCastro v. Tobin, Melien & Marohn (3:13-cv-1441) and Valle v. Green Tree Servicing (3:16-cv-277). Remaining claims: FDCPA (both cases) and TCPA (Valle).
On Jan 13, 2017, at a deposition, defense counsel (Smith) and Nelson Valle went on the record and recited specific settlement terms (payments, waiver of deficiency, releases, vacatur deadline).
Smith emailed a drafted written settlement agreement later that day and asked plaintiffs to review and approve; plaintiffs did not sign and asked for attorney review and a later settlement conference occurred without resolution.
Defendants moved to enforce the settlement agreement; plaintiffs argued they had not agreed (claimed confusion about the record, objections to inclusion of Bank of New York Mellon and Wendy/Molly Valle, and concerns about defendants’ conduct).
Court found the oral on-the-record statements reflected a clear, mutual oral settlement between Green Tree/National Bear Hill Trust and Nelson Valle and Brunilda Raymos‑Ayala, but found no mutual assent to the later drafted written agreement and no assent by Molly (Wendy) Valle.
Court ordered plaintiffs to provide W-9s and signed stipulations; within 30 days of receipt Green Tree must pay $7,000 and file dismissals; plaintiffs must vacate the property within 45 days; if all occupants (including Wendy) vacate, Green Tree must pay an additional $5,000; files administratively closed subject to reopening if terms unmet.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an on‑the‑record oral settlement is enforceable	Valle: going on the record only memorialized presence; no mutual assent	Defs: the on‑record recital showed clear, mutual agreement with specific terms	Court: Enforceable — oral agreement was clear and mutual as to Valle and Raymos‑Ayala
Whether the later written settlement was binding	Plaintiffs: did not sign and were still reviewing; no assent to specific written language	Defs: written memorialized the agreed terms and should be enforced	Court: Not binding — parties did not mutually assent to the written draft
Whether Wendy/Molly Valle is bound by the settlement	Plaintiffs: Wendy did not assent and is not a party	Defs: written agreement included Wendy; release covered Bank of NY Mellon etc.	Court: Wendy/Molly did not assent — not bound; incentive payment conditional on her vacatur remains valid but she is not individually obligated
Appropriate remedy/order to enforce settlement	Plaintiffs: disputed terms and sought conference	Defs: seek enforcement as recited on record	Court: Granted in part — enforces oral terms (payment schedule, waiver of deficiency, releases, vacatur deadline) and sets timelines for W‑9s, payment, vacatur, and filing of dismissals

Key Cases Cited

Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Omega, S.A., 432 F.3d 437 (2d Cir.) (settlement agreements on the record enforceable; court may summarily enforce clear terms)
Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434, 402 F.3d 314 (2d Cir.) (voluntary, clear stipulations of dismissal entered on the record are enforceable)
Schwarzschild v. Martin, 191 Conn. 316 (Conn.) (contract formation principles under Connecticut law)
Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (Conn.) (trial court’s power to summarily enforce clear settlement terms)
Millgard Corp. v. White Oak Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 425 (D. Conn.) (application of Connecticut rule to enforcement of settlement agreements)
Klein v. Chatfield, 166 Conn. 76 (Conn.) (contract not formed if something remains to be done to establish the relation)
Hunt v. Fuksman, 189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir.) (pro se party’s post‑record attempt to avoid oral settlement enforcement rejected)