Opinion
LLICV166014094S
11-21-2017
Philip ROSS v. Gaila ROSSITER et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Bentivegna, J.
This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff has moved to enforce an agreement pursuant to Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 811-12, 626 A.2d 729 (1993). A hearing was held on November 16, 2017, at which the following witnesses testified: David Albanese (defense counsel), Philip Ross, J. Michael Sconyers (plaintiff’s counsel), and Gaila Rossiter.
The court had ample opportunity to observe the conduct, demeanor and attitude of the witnesses and to evaluate the testimony. In considering the evidence, in addition to evaluating the testimony, the court also drew reasonable inferences from the facts established in this case. The court took into consideration, as well, all direct and circumstantial evidence presented. The court evaluated the witnesses who came before it, taking into account not only their spoken testimony, but also their ability to perceive the things about which they testified; their ability to recall relevant facts and events; any interest that they may have had in the outcome; the reasonableness of their testimony; and any contradictions that arose between their testimony and other evidence introduced at the hearing. The court’s conclusions are based upon all of the foregoing factors.
" A trial court has the inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous ... Agreements that end lawsuits are contracts, sometimes enforceable in a subsequent suit, but in many situations enforceable by entry of a judgment in the original suit. A court’s authority to enforce a settlement by entry of judgment in the underlying action is especially clear where the settlement is reported to the court during the course of a trial or other significant courtroom proceedings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., supra, 225 Conn. 811-12. " It is a basic principle of contract law that in order to form a binding contract there must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds. Where the parties appear to have agreed to the terms of the contract, but circumstances disclose a latent ambiguity in the meaning of an essential word, this ambiguity going to the essence of the supposed contract, the result is that there is no contract ... To constitute an offer and acceptance sufficient to create an enforceable contract, each must be found to have been based on an identical understanding by the parties ... If there has been a misunderstanding between the parties, or a misapprehension by one or both so that their minds have never met, no contract has been entered into by them." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Zahornacky v. Edward Chevrolet, Inc., 37 Conn.Supp. 751, 753-54, 436 A.2d 47 (1981).
In this case, the terms of the agreement were not clear and unambiguous. Rossiter never agreed to the plaintiff’s proposed parcel. She was not agreeable to that exact parcel. She had in mind a smaller parcel. There was also a lack of agreement regarding the boundary markers. During the negotiations, defense counsel did represent that he was having difficulty contacting his client. Rossiter never signed the proposed quit claim deed or general release. The check was not to be disbursed until the parties finished dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, and it was not disbursed. A basic tenet of contract law is that there must be a meeting of the minds for a contract to be found. Zahornacky v. Edward Chevrolet, Inc., supra, 37 Conn.Supp. 753. There was no meeting of the minds regarding the parcel to be conveyed. Unfortunately, the parties were not available to represent on the record, in open court, that they had agreed to settle the entire matter and the terms of the agreement. No withdrawal was ever filed.
The movant did not meet his burden. Therefore, the motion must be denied.
The parties are ordered to contact the civil caseflow office to schedule a TMC and Court Trial.