Rena Sobol Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership
Citation | 298 Conn. 495,4 A.3d 288 |
Decision Date | 28 September 2010 |
Docket Number | Nos. 18288, 18289.,s. 18288, 18289. |
Parties | Rena Sobol ACKERMAN et al. v. SOBOL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLP, et al. Alfred Casella et al. v. Ruth Sobol et al. Tamar Ackerman et al. v. Bank of America et al. In re Rena Sobol Ackerman Trust. TZVI Rakoszynski et al. v. Bank of America et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Wesley W. Horton and William P. Horan, with whom were Kimberly A. Knox and, on the brief, Austin J. McGuigan, Anne C. Dranginis, Hartford, and Alexandra M. Greene, certified legal intern, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Sheila A. Huddleston, with whom were Robert L. Wyld and Karen T. Staib, and, on the brief, Steven D. Ecker and Dina S. Fisher, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).
NORCOTT, KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js. *
The principal issue in this consolidated appeal, 1 which arises out of a series of disputes 2 concerning the management and oversight of a family partnership and various family trusts, 3 is whether the plaintiffs' attorney had apparent authority to make settlement proposals, engage in settlement discussions and bind the plaintiffs to a global settlement agreement with the defendants. 4 The plaintiffs claim that the trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement between the parties, based on a finding of apparent authority on the part of the plaintiffs' attorney to bind the plaintiffs to the agreement, was clearly erroneous in the absence of conduct by the plaintiffs (1) manifesting that their attorney had authority to settle the pending litigation, and (2) leading the opposing defense attorneys reasonably to believe that the plaintiffs' attorney had full and final authority to settle the litigation, as distinguished from authority only to negotiate. The plaintiffs also claim that they were denied their right to a jury trial on issues of fact under article first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution, as amended by article four of the amendments, when the trial court, in the midst of voir dire, made findings of fact and determined that the litigants had reached a settlement of the pending litigation. The defendants respond that the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs' counsel had apparent authority to settle the litigation was not clearly erroneous and that the plaintiffs had no right to a jury trial on their equitable motions seeking to enforce the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In the underlying cases, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et. seq. The cases were scheduled for a combined jury and court trial to commence on July 8, 2008, after the completion of jury selection. On July 3, 2008, however, the Sobol defendants and the defendant Bank of America each filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached with the plaintiffs on July 1, 2008. On July 8, 2008, the trial court, Eveleigh, J., conducted a hearing pursuant to Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 811-12, 626 A.2d 729 (1993), 5 to determine whether the settlement agreement was enforceable, at which the plaintiffs argued that there was no agreement and the defendants argued that there was. On July 9, 2008, the court issued an oral decision from the bench containing the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
“On July 1, 2008, while ... [Rena] Ackerman was physically present at the offices of Shipman and Goodwin, [Coe] continued to await word from [Schneider] regarding [the] Bank of America's willingness to settle the case for $1.1 million and extended the deadline for response from 12 noon to 5 p.m.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wash.
...in the 2013 settlement agreement."A settlement agreement ... is a contract among the parties." Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP , 298 Conn. 495, 532, 4 A.3d 288 (2010). At its essence, a settlement agreement that resolves a pending zoning appeal in accordance with § 8-8 (n) is a st......
-
Kinity v. US Bancorp
...Conn. App. 268, 277, 210 A.3d 668 (2019).The procedure established in Audubon has since been expanded. In Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP , 298 Conn. 495, 4 A.3d 288 (2010), our Supreme Court extended Audubon to permit the court to resolve issues of fact raised in connection with ......
-
Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC
...the Defendants in the instant case satisfy these elements. An agent's authority may be actual or apparent. Ackerman v. Sobol Family P'ship, LLP , 298 Conn. 495, 4 A.3d 288, 298 (2010) (quoting Maharishi Sch. of Vedic Sciences, Inc. (Connecticut) v. Connecticut Constitution Assocs. Ltd. P'sh......
-
Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of Town of Wash.
...... parties.'' Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership,. LLP , 298 ......
-
Tort Developments in 2010
...at 106. 197. Id. at 117-18. 198 . Id. at 120-21. Chief Justice Rogers and Justice Katz dissented from the harmless error analysis. 199. 298 Conn. 495, 4 A.3d 288 (2010). 200. Id. at 499. 201. Id. The hearing was held pursuant to Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay and Stu......
-
2011 Appellate Review
...132 (2011). 7. 301 Conn. 724, 22 A.3d 1242 (2011). 8. 302 Conn. 46, 23 A.3d 1233 (2011). 9. See, e.g., Ackerman v. Sobol Family P'ship 298 Conn. 495, 530-32, 4 A.3d 288 (2010). The authors represented the plaintiff in Ackerman. 10. See WESLEY W. HORTON, THE CONNECTICUT STATE CONSTITUTION 16......
-
Professional Responsibility Review 2010
...abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter." 73. 118 CONN. App. 800, 990 A.2d 869 (2010). 74. Id. at 816. 75. 2 98 CONN. 495, 4 A.3d 288 (2010). The authors represented the plaintiff in the appeal. 76. 124 CONN. App. 81, 4 A.3d 336 (2010), cert. denied, 300 CONN. 906, 12 A.3d 1......