Background
Gerard and Carla Karlen owned residential property in Westport, Connecticut, adjacent to property owned by defendants Hany and Marianne Saleeb. In 2021, the Karlens sued the Saleebns for harassment, stalking, surveillance, and property interference allegedly occurring since 2013. The trial court struck most claims, leaving only negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Separately, the Saleebns had filed a related action in Bridgeport challenging a wall the Karlens constructed, which the Saleebns claimed impaired their right of way.
Beginning February 7, 2024, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. By late February, extensive email exchanges between counsel occurred, with electronic copies to the plaintiff. On February 23, 2024, during a status conference in the Bridgeport action, counsel for the defendants reported to the court that the Stamford case had been settled but the Bridgeport case had not. The plaintiff, when given the opportunity to agree or disagree, stated: “Yes…. That is exactly where we are.” The defendants then signed a settlement agreement on February 25, 2024. On February 26, however, Carla Karlen through counsel withdrew her agreement to settle.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement. The court held that the trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its legal conclusion that an enforceable settlement existed was correct. The parties had clearly and unambiguously agreed to settle the Stamford action separately from the Bridgeport action, contrary to the plaintiff’s post-hoc assertion of a “dual settlement contingency.”
The court emphasized that under Connecticut law, a settlement agreement may be enforced even though not signed by all parties if the parties have otherwise indicated assent. Here, the evidence established that: (1) the plaintiff explicitly agreed to counsel’s report to the judge that the Stamford case was settled; (2) he was privy to email negotiations documenting agreement on settlement terms; (3) the settlement was properly reported during a significant courtroom proceeding (a status conference); and (4) the written settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous. The trial court’s credibility determination rejecting the plaintiff’s testimony that he never intended to settle the Stamford case without also settling the Bridgeport case was afforded full deference on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Parties may be bound to settlement agreements even without signing if they have otherwise clearly indicated assent through conduct and statements.
- Settlements reported in related proceedings between the same parties can be enforced under the Audubon framework when terms are clear and unambiguous.
- Trial courts retain broad discretion in credibility determinations regarding witness testimony about settlement intent, and appellate courts defer to those determinations.
- A party cannot retroactively impose conditions precedent to settlement if those conditions were not clearly agreed upon before the parties reported settlement to the court.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Connecticut courts will enforce settlement agreements based on parties’ conduct and clear statements of agreement, not merely formal signatures. The opinion makes clear that a party cannot later escape a settlement by claiming unilateral conditions were implied. This has significant practical implications for litigators: settlement discussions should be carefully documented, and oral or email statements confirming settlement terms may bind parties even without signed agreements. The decision also clarifies that settlements can be properly reported and enforced when discussed in related proceedings involving the same parties, provided the terms are plainly stated and accepted.
For practitioners, the holding underscores the importance of contemporaneous documentation in settlement negotiations and the risk that clear statements of agreement—especially before a judge—will be treated as binding commitments regardless of later-expressed reservations.