Schmidt v. Meyer-Prenata, No. Cv88 02 72 12s (Apr. 11, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Schmidt v. Meyer-Prenata, No. Cv88 02 72 12s (Apr. 11, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3112

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 11, 1991

DocketNo. CV88 02 72 12S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3112 (Schmidt v. Meyer-Prenata, No. Cv88 02 72 12s (Apr. 11, 1991)) 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

Schmidt v. Meyer-Prenata, No. Cv88 02 72 12s (Apr. 11, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3112 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff has filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement which it is claimed was reached between the parties on March 7, 1991 for the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of $16,700, consisting of damages in the amount of $22,290.26 less collateral source payments of $5,590.26 for which the defendant was entitled to a credit under section52-225a. CT Page 3113

A plaintiff obtains an additional cause of action when the parties to litigation agree on a verbal settlement and the defendant then defaults on its terms — Montgomery v. Smith, 40 Conn. Sup. 358. If a settlement was reached and a defendant agreed to pay a specified amount, the defendant cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement later and refuse to carry out its terms. Whether this occurred here presents questions of fact as to the exact terms of the agreement, and whether there was a meeting of minds on its terms. This cannot be decided based on statements of counsel in a motion to carry out the claimed settlement, which is not evidence and cannot form the basis for the necessary findings to prove what amounts to a new cause of action.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

ROBERT A. FULLER, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff has filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement which it is claimed was reached between the parties on March 7, 1991 for the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of $16,700, consisting of damages in the amount of $22,290.26 less collateral source payments of $5,590.26 for which the defendant was entitled to a credit under section52-225a. CT Page 3113

A plaintiff obtains an additional cause of action when the parties to litigation agree on a verbal settlement and the defendant then defaults on its terms — Montgomery v. Smith, 40 Conn. Sup. 358. If a settlement was reached and a defendant agreed to pay a specified amount, the defendant cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement later and refuse to carry out its terms. Whether this occurred here presents questions of fact as to the exact terms of the agreement, and whether there was a meeting of minds on its terms. This cannot be decided based on statements of counsel in a motion to carry out the claimed settlement, which is not evidence and cannot form the basis for the necessary findings to prove what amounts to a new cause of action.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

ROBERT A. FULLER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-meyer-prenata-no-cv88-02-72-12s-apr-11-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack