Carlson v. Carlson

• Decision Date: 08 February 2022
• Docket Number: AC 43007
• Citation: 210 Conn.App. 501,270 A.3d 181
• Parties: Stuart C. CARLSON et al. v. Vernon F. CARLSON et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

210 Conn.App. 501

270 A.3d 181

Stuart C. CARLSON et al.

v.Vernon F. CARLSON et al.

AC 43007

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 9, 2021

Officially released February 8, 2022

Vernon F. Carlson, self-represented, the appellant (named defendant).

William G. Reveley, Tolland, with whom, on the brief, was Malcolm F. Barlow, for the appellees (plaintiffs and defendant Kristine Carlson).

Elgo, Cradle and Flynn, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The self-represented defendant, Vernon F. Carlson,¹ appeals from various judgments and actions of the trial court stemming from a 2007 action commenced by the plaintiffs, Stuart C. Carlson, Patricia W. Carlson, and Alexis S. Carlson,² and a subsequent settlement agreement that was reached by the parties in 2015. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred (1) in denying his motions to inspect and copy corporate and partnership tax returns, (2) by not addressing the dispute in the presettlement notice between the parties before a settlement was reached, (3) in not ordering the plaintiffs to release all claims during the 2015 settlement negotiations, (4) in authorizing an application for a subdivision of a property owned by the partnership, and (5) in appointing Peter Carlson as receiver. We conclude that the defendant's first three claims must be dismissed. As for the fourth and fifth claims, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgments of the court.

The court set forth the following facts and procedural history of the case in its February 5, 2020 memorandum of decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion to terminate stay. "The long history of this case began with a complaint filed in 2007 by the plaintiffs .... The complaint alleged, and the parties do not dispute, that the parties were members of a partnership referred to as Carlson Associates. The parties possessed varying percentages of interest in the partnership. Stuart Carlson was alleged to have been the managing partner. The court file reveals that no written partnership agreement governed the relations among the partners or between the partners and the partnership. The plaintiffs alleged in their original complaint that the assets of the partnership consisted of fourteen parcels of real estate located in the towns of Manchester ... and Glastonbury ... and loans by Carlson Associates to Karen [Carlson], Kristine [Carlson] and the defendant. The two count complaint asserted claims for partition of the assets of the partnership and its dissolution. These claims were grounded on the existence of significant discord among the partners, which included the occupancy of Karen [Carlson] and the defendant of partnership properties without paying rent and the refusal to remit rent received from nonpartner tenants. Karen [Carlson] and the defendant were alleged to have refused to agree to the sale of any of the partnership properties although the expenses and liabilities of the partnership, including past due real property taxes, exceeded its income. Stuart [Carlson] and Patricia [Carlson] claimed in the complaint that they loaned money to the partnership without repayments, and further that the partnership loaned money to the defendant, Kristine Carlson and Karen Carlson, which had not been repaid. The plaintiffs additionally sought settlement of accounts and contributions between the [parties].

"After the filing of the complaint, four years lapsed with little activity. Stuart Carlson died on January 23, 2011, and Patricia Carlson, the administratrix of his estate, was substituted as a [plaintiff]. In 2012, the matter was dismissed for failure to prosecute and subsequently reopened. Three more years passed in the service of disagreement. During this time, the [plaintiffs] moved for court orders to sell four partnership properties in 2012.... The defendant objected. In 2013, the defendant moved for an order permitting him to inspect partnership records. ... Later that year, the [plaintiffs] moved successfully, over the objection of the defendant, for a court order permitting the partnership to enter into a listing agreement with a real estate agent to market and sell the remaining properties. ... The movants asserted that the defendant had refused to sign any listing agreement. In the meantime, foreclosure proceedings were commenced by the town of Glastonbury for unpaid property taxes. ... Despite the foreclosure proceedings, the defendant continued to resist the sale of the properties including those under contract. ...

The sale of the properties under contract was ultimately consummated, apparently in 2014. On May 26, 2015, the court ... dissolved the partnership and appoint[ed] Richard Conti, Esq. as a receiver. ... Despite multiple offers to purchase certain other properties of the partnership, the partners were unable to agree on their sale of the listing of other properties causing the offers to be withdrawn. ...

"On November 17, 2015, the case came before the court for trial. The operative pleadings at the time of trial were the amended complaint dated November 9, 2015, and the answer with setoffs of the defendant, also dated November 9, 2015. At no time during the prior eight years during which the action was pending had the defendant asserted a counterclaim or cross claim. The [plaintiffs] reached a settlement agreement among themselves and with the partnership. On the fourth day of evidence, the defendant and the [plaintiffs] reached a settlement. The settlement included an adjournment of the trial and payment of $102,000 to Patricia Carlson. The remaining property was to be appraised and, with the exception of the property known as 637 South Main Street in Manchester, sold with the proceeds of the sales to be distributed among the partners according to their varying partnership percentages. The defendant was to receive the 637 South Main Street property, the value of which was to be deducted from his share of funds generated from the sale of the property. The bills of any creditors of the partnership and the receiver were to be paid before any distributions were made. Distributions to the partners were subject to the approval of the court, which was to retain jurisdiction of the matter for the winding down of the partnership assets and debts.

"Pursuant to the settlement agreement, including the adjournment of the trial, a number of properties owned by the partnership were sold and partial distributions made to the parties with the exception of the defendant. The defendant made objections to both. ... The defendant also objected at various times to the payment of fees to the receiver. ... The attendant delay in making a distribution to the defendant involved the uncertainty relative to the value of the total assets of the estate and the value of the 63[7] South Main Street property. Disputes arose (1) between the defendant and an easement holder over 637 South Main Street, (2) whether the defendant and Karen Carlson remained indebted to the partnership as had previously been claimed by Stuart [Carlson] and Patricia Carlson and (3) whether to subdivide one of the parcels of property. Two attorneys’ liens for work done on behalf of the defendant by two different attorneys were presented to the receiver for payment. The court declined to treat the attorneys’ fees as partnership debt because it was work done primarily for the benefit of the defendant as evidenced by court filings. Any claims against the defendant and that might have remained after the settlement agreement were withdrawn, on the record and in a filing with the court, by the [plaintiffs]. The disagreement over the easement remains. The court granted approval, over the objection of the defendant, to subdivide the parcel at issue. [Karen] Carlson died in 201[7], and her interests were represented by [Kristine] Carlson as the executrix of the estate of [Karen] Carlson.

"On March 21, 2019, a counterclaim was, for the first time, asserted by [the defendant] against ‘Patricia Carlson, Alexis Carlson, Kristine Carlson and Attorney William G. Reveley [counsel for the partnership, Patricia Carlson individually and as administratrix of Stuart Carlson's estate, and Alexis Carlson], Attorney Mary Rossettie [prior counsel for the estate] and the estates of Stuart C. Carlson and Karen Carlson.’ The counterclaim was procedurally improper in that it was filed without a request for leave to amend, or motion to amend, as required by Practice Book § 61-10. The counterclaim named two attorneys as defendants, who were not parties to the action without permission of the court as required by Practice Book § 10-11 and General Statutes § 52-102a. Moreover, the court interpreted the settlement agreement, involving an adjournment of the trial, as a general release of any and all claims the parties had against each other. Finally, the court notes that the conduct complained of by the defendant in his counterclaim, which asserts counts of breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of process, assert claims for conduct that is outside of the statute of limitations. On April 15, 2019, all the other parties joined in an objection, expressed through the vehicle of a motion to strike, to the counterclaim on the above grounds and together filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court granted the motions on May 28, 2019, ordered the counterclaim stricken, and the defendant appealed.

"On June 21, 2019, this court granted the joint motion of all parties excluding the defendant to terminate the automatic stay imposed by Practice Book § 61-11. The motion was limited to lifting any stay imposed on the filing of a Mylar,³ necessary to effect the subdivision of 637 South Main Street, Manchester. The filing of the Mylar was a condition subsequent to the permitting of the property by the appropriate municipal boards. The receiver supported the lifting of the stay to file the Mylar because the liquid assets under his control were diminishing and the available partnership funds would...