Background
Soledad Nunez sued Gwendolyn Brown-White and Seaview Village Condominium Association, Inc., asserting false-light invasion of privacy, defamation per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and CUTPA claims. At a July 2024 pretrial conference, counsel discussed settling for $5,000 plus a release, confidentiality, nondisparagement, a future-attorney-fee provision, no admission of liability, and an agreement that Nunez would not run for the condominium board.
The next day, Nunez’s then-counsel emailed defense counsel that Nunez accepted the settlement offer and the stated nonmonetary principles, subject to review of specific language. Defense counsel sent a draft agreement, and Nunez’s counsel reported the case as settled but not withdrawn. Nunez later retained new counsel, disputed that her former lawyer had authority to settle, and opposed the defendants’ motion to enforce the agreement. Following an Audubon hearing, the trial court enforced the settlement.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the trial court’s finding of a meeting of the minds on the settlement’s essential terms was not clearly erroneous. The emails between counsel expressly communicated acceptance, identified the material terms, and were followed by counsel’s report to caseflow that the matter had settled. The fact that the written agreement was unsigned and that the language of nonmonetary provisions remained subject to review did not defeat contract formation.
The court also held that the trial court properly relied on the email exchanges and counsel’s conduct as objective evidence of assent. Nunez’s declaration was not sworn before an authorized officer and therefore had no evidentiary value. Although the trial court made no express finding on former counsel’s authority, Nunez did not seek articulation, and the record supported an implicit finding of authority through counsel’s testimony that Nunez authorized acceptance.
Key Takeaways
- An unsigned settlement can be enforceable when the parties’ objective words and conduct show assent to its essential terms.
- Review of specific settlement language does not necessarily make acceptance conditional when the parties already agreed on the material terms.
- An unsworn declaration is not evidence equivalent to sworn testimony at an Audubon hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Connecticut courts’ ability to summarily enforce settlements reported as reached, even when the parties have not signed final papers. Lawyers should make clear in settlement communications whether agreement on core terms is final or remains contingent on further negotiation.
It also underscores the importance of building an adequate appellate record. A party challenging factual findings or an attorney’s authority to settle must present admissible evidence and seek articulation when the trial court’s decision does not expressly address an issue.