Since the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision in Audobon Parking Associates v Barclay & Stubbs, Connecticut attorneys have understood that if the parties to litigation reach an agreement to settle a case with sufficient clarity as to terms, the court may summarily enforce the terms of that settlement. But what if the settlement is reached before litigation is commenced? That was the question recently addressed by the Connecticut Court of Appeals. The Plaintiff appealed the decision of a trial court summarily finding that an agreement to settle the controversy reached before the litigation was commenced was enforceable pursuant to Audobon.
The trial court had reasoned that because “[t]he entire agreement was clear and unambiguous, and was explained in depth and detail to the plaintiff by his attorney.” The Plaintiff argued that because the settlement in dispute was entered into before the litigation was commenced, the Supreme Court’s holding in Audobon does not control and the agreement could not be summarily enforced.
The Court held: ” We agree. Audubon involved an agreement, reached in the midst of litigation, to settle a pending case. [citation omitted]. Here, by contrast, the defendants sought to use that doctrine to enforce summarily a preemptive release signed before the present litigation began. We conclude that Audubon does not extend so far. ”
To qualify as an agreement to settle litigation for purposes of Audubon-style summary enforcement, an agreement must be reached after the relevant litigation commenced.