Burgess v. Colley, No. 0063746 (Mar. 4, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Burgess v. Colley, No. 0063746 (Mar. 4, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2756

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 4, 2002

DocketNo. 0063746

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2756 (Burgess v. Colley, No. 0063746 (Mar. 4, 2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgess v. Colley, No. 0063746 (Mar. 4, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2756 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Motion to Compel Enforcement of Settlement The defendant has moved to enforce a settlement which was reached after exhaustive disclosure and judicial pretrial negotiations. On October 17, 2001, the parties appeared before the Honorable Joseph F. Dannehy at the Superior Court in Willimantic for the purpose of entering into pretrial negotiations with the aid of the court (See Practice Book § 14-13). Thereafter, the plaintiff indicated he would accept the sum of $7,000 to settle the personal injury claim. The defendant thereafter agreed to pay said sum. Justice Dannehy canvassed the plaintiff who agreed to resolve the claim for the sum of $7,000. This procedure and customary practice is designed to promote fair and reasonable pretrial compromises of litigation, to eliminate the expense of trial and to promote judicial economy. As the appellate court has recently noted ". . . as a matter of public policy, our law favors the voluntary settlement of civil disputes (internal citations omitted) City of Bristol v. Dickau Bus Co.63 Conn. App. 770, 773 (2001).

Months after the settlement was placed on the record of the court, the plaintiff now believes it was improvident for him to have accepted the offer. It is too late. "Generally a trial court has the inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement as a matter of law only when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous; and when the parties do not dispute the terms of the agreement" DAP Financial Management Co. v.Mor-Fam Electric, Inc., 59 Conn. App. 92, 95.

The court finds that the terms of the settlement agreement were clear and unambiguous as those terms were set out by the court on the record and there was no subsequent dispute by the parties as to the terms of the agreement. Ballard v. Asset Recovery Management Co., 39 Conn. App. 805,812, 667 A.2d 1298 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 906, 670 A.2d 1306 (1996). For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is granted and judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant Susan Colley for the sum of $7,000.00 without costs.

By the Court

Foley, J. CT Page 2758

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Motion to Compel Enforcement of Settlement The defendant has moved to enforce a settlement which was reached after exhaustive disclosure and judicial pretrial negotiations. On October 17, 2001, the parties appeared before the Honorable Joseph F. Dannehy at the Superior Court in Willimantic for the purpose of entering into pretrial negotiations with the aid of the court (See Practice Book § 14-13). Thereafter, the plaintiff indicated he would accept the sum of $7,000 to settle the personal injury claim. The defendant thereafter agreed to pay said sum. Justice Dannehy canvassed the plaintiff who agreed to resolve the claim for the sum of $7,000. This procedure and customary practice is designed to promote fair and reasonable pretrial compromises of litigation, to eliminate the expense of trial and to promote judicial economy. As the appellate court has recently noted ". . . as a matter of public policy, our law favors the voluntary settlement of civil disputes (internal citations omitted) City of Bristol v. Dickau Bus Co.63 Conn. App. 770, 773 (2001).

Months after the settlement was placed on the record of the court, the plaintiff now believes it was improvident for him to have accepted the offer. It is too late. "Generally a trial court has the inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement as a matter of law only when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous; and when the parties do not dispute the terms of the agreement" DAP Financial Management Co. v.Mor-Fam Electric, Inc., 59 Conn. App. 92, 95.

The court finds that the terms of the settlement agreement were clear and unambiguous as those terms were set out by the court on the record and there was no subsequent dispute by the parties as to the terms of the agreement. Ballard v. Asset Recovery Management Co., 39 Conn. App. 805,812, 667 A.2d 1298 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 906, 670 A.2d 1306 (1996). For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is granted and judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant Susan Colley for the sum of $7,000.00 without costs.

By the Court

Foley, J. CT Page 2758

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-colley-no-0063746-mar-4-2002-connsuperct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack