Opinion
No. FA 05 4002343 S
March 15, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (RE MOTION TO OPEN AND VACATE JUDGMENT DATED 10/30/06)
This action commenced as a complaint for a new trial following a contested dissolution of marriage action. This Court rendered judgment in that prior action on April 4, 2005. (Docket No. FA-02-0079940-S).
Following an appeal by the plaintiff which affirmed the judgment ( Szegda v. Szeada, 97 Conn.App. 426 (2006)) and denial of certification by the Supreme Court ( Szegda v. Szeada, 280 Conn. 932 (2006)), the plaintiff commenced this complaint for a new trial alleging newly discovered evidence relevant to the value of the real property as justification to set aside the judgment and to have a new trial.
The defendant moved for summary judgment in the present action, however on the date scheduled to hear the motion for summary judgment (October 30, 2006), the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel, entered into a stipulated judgment which would purportedly settle the issues in the case.
That stipulated judgment provided for the plaintiff to convey her interest in a parcel of landknown as the Robinson Farm to the defendant, reserving to herself a four-acre parcel which included the house, swimming pool and well.
They attached a very rough handwritten sketch of the four-acre piece specifying, inter alia, 200' from the westerly boundary line and the four-acre parcel. The reserved parcel was drawn as a rectangular piece fronting on Robinson Road. They further agreed that the defendant would retain a surveyor to "implement the precise four acre parcel" and that the settlement would release the defendant from his $450,000 obligation to the plaintiff under the terms of the judgment.
An evidentiary hearing on this motion to open and vacate was held on February 20, 2007. At that hearing the defendant admittedly made unilateral changes to the sketched plan prepared for the judgment. He totally removed the 200' distance between the westerly boundary of the four-acre parcel. The agreement provided there would be an easement for the defendant to access the septic leach field, but the location was not shown on the sketch. The sketch and the stipulation described the four-acre piece to be rectangular whereas the engineered map depicts more of a square parcel than a rectangular one.
The defendant testified that he had changes made in the final product for the benefit of the plaintiff. He said the configuration of the engineered plan was done at the suggestion of a family member and the plaintiff could probably carve out a building lot whereas the sketched proposal would not permit her to do so, thus adding value to her four-acre piece.
The problem is simply that the engineered plan has significant differences from the original agreement. In addition the language of the stipulated judgment is sufficiently unclear and ambiguous to preclude the Court from finding a meeting of the minds as to the location and nature of the four-acre parcel.
The Court concludes that the stipulated judgment cannot be enforced as a matter of contract.
The Court also agrees that this agreement is subject to the statute of frauds which requires the subject of the contract to be defined with specificity. Pigeon v. Hatheway, 156 Conn. 175, (1968).
The description of the land is not, in the opinion of this court, defined as to length and width, easement location. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to meet any criteria of specificity. The preliminary sketch map drawn up by the parties shows only one measurement, that being the 200' separation from the westerly property line, and that was not even adhered to in the engineered plan.
The plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the judgment is granted.