Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC

• Decision Date: 22 February 2022
• Docket Number: AC 44348
• Citation: 210 Conn.App. 725,271 A.3d 141
• Parties: Celia WHEELER et al. v. BEACHCROFT, LLC, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

210 Conn.App. 725

271 A.3d 141

Celia WHEELER et al.

v.BEACHCROFT, LLC, et al.

AC 44348

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 9, 2021

Officially released February 22, 2022

Richard P. Colbert, New Haven, with whom were Matthew J. Letten, Hartford, and Gerald L. Garlick, West Hartford, for the appellant (named defendant).

Joel Z. Green, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Linda Pesce Laske, for the appellees (named plaintiff et al.).

Peter J. Berdon, for the appellee (plaintiff Pine Hill Orchard Association, Inc.).

Thomas J. Donlon, Stamford, for the appellee (defendant town of Branford).

Michael S. Taylor, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque and, on the brief, Peter J. Zarella, Hartford, for the appellees (defendant James R. McBurney et al.).

Moll, Alexander and Suarez, Js.

MOLL, J.

This appeal is the latest episode in what our Supreme Court has described as "a nearly century old dispute among neighbors in a housing development along the Long Island Sound (sound) over access to the shore."¹ Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC , 320 Conn. 146, 148, 129 A.3d 677 (2016). The defendant Beachcroft, LLC,² appeals from the judgment of the trial court summarily enforcing a settlement agreement entered on the record on the eve of trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) committed error in making a finding that two intervening defendants, the McBurneys, were not parties to the settlement agreement, and (2) improperly altered or omitted material terms of the settlement agreement in summarily enforcing the settlement agreement.³ We reverse the judgment of the trial court only insofar as the court's decision summarily enforcing the settlement agreement omitted certain terms of the settlement agreement, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.

The following facts, as drawn from a previous decision of our Supreme Court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The dispute in this matter centers on "a housing development (development) that is located adjacent to the sound on Crescent Bluff Avenue (avenue) in the town of Branford. ... The development consists of thirty-five lots in a long and narrow five acre tract of land. The narrow end of the development borders the sound to the south, with the avenue running north to south through the development and perpendicular to the sound. Thirty-one lots line the avenue in the interior of the development. The avenue runs between the four waterfront lots, with two lots on each side. The avenue ends at a small strip of land (lawn) directly abutting the sound ...." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 150, 129 A.3d 677. The plaintiffs own interior lots in the development, the McBurneys and Lowlicht and Haedicke⁴ own waterfront lots in the development, and the defendant owns the avenue and part of the lawn in the development. Id. In addition, there appears to be no dispute that the intervening plaintiffs also own interior lots in the development.

In 2009, pursuant to General Statutes § 47-31,⁵ the plaintiffs commenced the present quiet title action. The plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, their operative complaint filed on October 9, 2018, contained eleven counts asserting various rights with respect to the avenue and the lawn that were adverse to any interests claimed by the defendant, the town, Pine Orchard Association, Inc., the intervening plaintiffs, the McBurneys, and/or Lowlicht and Haedicke. The intervening plaintiffs’ amended complaint, their operative complaint filed on July 12, 2012, contained eleven counts that substantively tracked the plaintiffs’ claims.⁶ Additionally, pursuant to § 47-31 (d),⁷ the defendant, the town, Pine Orchard Association, Inc.,⁸ and Lowlicht and Haedicke claimed interests in the avenue and the lawn. The McBurneys did not file an answer and made no statement pursuant to § 47-31 (d). Over the course of the litigation, either by way of summary judgment or following trial, the trial court ruled against the plaintiffs and the intervening plaintiffs with respect to most of their claims.⁹ The remaining claims were scheduled to be tried on February 3, 2020.

On January 31, 2020, during a hearing conducted by the court, Moukawsher, J ., to address pretrial matters, the court granted an oral motion made by the plaintiffs’ counsel to continue the trial to February 4, 2020, to provide the parties with additional time to continue ongoing settlement negotiations. On February 4, 2020, with counsel for some, but not all, of the parties present before the court, two interrelated settlement agreements were entered on the record. The plaintiffs’ counsel recited the terms of the first settlement agreement, and the town's counsel set forth the terms of the second settlement agreement (collectively, settlement agreement).¹⁰ The settlement agreement required, inter alia, (1) the defendant to quitclaim a portion of the lawn, along with an existing stairway and a triangular piece of property containing the stairway, which together provided access from the avenue to the shore, to Pine Orchard Association, Inc., (2) the parties to the settlement agreement to "exchange mutual general releases and ... withdraw all pending claims and actions by them," (3) the defendant to quitclaim the avenue to the town and to grant the town an easement to repair, maintain, and replace a drainpipe, and (4) the town to pay the defendant $200,000. The same day, the court ordered that the case had been reported settled and that, unless withdrawn sooner, the case would be dismissed on May 19, 2020.

On March 2, 2020, the defendant filed a motion titled "Motion for Order (in Aid of Settlement)" (motion for order). The defendant asserted that, following the February 4, 2020 hearing, the McBurneys had engaged in conduct interfering with the execution of the settlement agreement. As relief, the defendant requested that the court order that the McBurneys (1) were bound by the settlement agreement and (2) "ha[d] no rights to take any action to interfere with the implementation of the settlement agreement."¹¹ On March 5, 2020, the McBurneys filed an objection, arguing, inter alia, that they were not parties to the settlement agreement. Additionally, the McBurneys requested that the court sanction the defendant for filing the motion for order in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or oppressively.

On May 22, 2020, the plaintiffs, the town, and Pine Orchard Association, Inc., each filed a motion to summarily enforce the settlement agreement. In their respective motions, the movants asserted that the McBurneys were not parties to the settlement agreement. On the same day, the defendant filed a motion captioned "Motion to Bind McBurneys to Settlement Agreement" (motion to bind), requesting that the court order that the McBurneys (1) had no rights with respect to its property, (2) were estopped from claiming any right to interfere with the settlement agreement, and/or (3) had waived any right to interfere with the settlement agreement.

On June 12, 2020, the defendant withdrew the motion for order and the motion to bind. On the same day, the defendant filed a "response" to the motions to summarily enforce the settlement agreement, stating, inter alia, that it agreed that a global settlement had been reached, and that, therefore, the court did not need to adjudicate the pending motions.

On July 1, 2020, the court conducted a hearing on the motions to summarily enforce the settlement agreement and the McBurneys’ request for sanctions against the defendant. No evidence was offered or admitted during the hearing. After hearing argument from the parties, the court ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to file a proposed order regarding enforcement of the settlement agreement. The court also reserved its ruling on the McBurneys’ request for sanctions against the defendant.

On July 9, 2020, in accordance with the court's July 1, 2020 order, the plaintiffs filed a proposed order (original proposed order). On July 14, 2020, the defendant filed an objection to the original proposed order.

On July 14, 2020, the court denied the McBurneys’ request for sanctions against the defendant. In its order, the court stated that "[the McBurneys] were not part of the settlement [agreement] ...."

On August 4, 2020, the court conducted a hearing to address the defendant's objections to the original proposed order. On August 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended proposed order (amended proposed order), to which the defendant filed an objection on August 6, 2020.

On August 11, 2020, the court issued a memorandum of decision granting the motions to summarily enforce the settlement agreement (enforcement decision). As part of the enforcement decision, the court found that the McBurneys had "declined to participate in the settlement agreement ...." In addition, the court entered orders to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. On August 31, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to reargue, which the court denied on October 9, 2020. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

Before we analyze the defendant's claims, we set forth the following general legal principles relevant to our resolution of this appeal. "In [ Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc ., 225 Conn. 804, 626 A.2d 729 (1993) ( Audubon )], our Supreme Court determined that a settlement agreement resolving the issues in a pending case may be enforced prior to and without the necessity of a trial: 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...