Opinion
No. HDSP-134290
March 3, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent. On November 15, 2005, the Court granted the parties' motion for judgment in accordance with a stipulated agreement. As a result, judgment for possession was entered in favor of the Plaintiff with a final stay of execution through/until February 15, 2006, based on certain conditions.
On January 23, 2006, the Defendant filed a Motion to Amend Stipulated Agreement. The matter was heard on February 7, 2006. At the hearing, the Defendant asked to be reinstated as a tenant in good standing upon payment of the arrearage. The Defendant did not dispute the terms of the agreement, but instead argued for equitable relief. The Plaintiff objected to the motion and asked for enforcement of the agreement.
The Court must address the issue of the enforceability of this agreement. Audubon Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993). In Audubon, the Supreme held that "a trial court may summarily enforce a settlement agreement within the framework of the original lawsuit as a matter of law when the parties do not dispute the terms of the agreement." Audubon, supra, 225 Conn. 812. The Court explained the rationale for enforcing settlement agreements as follows:
Summary enforcement is not only essential to the efficient use of judicial resources, but also preserves the integrity of settlement as a meaningful way to resolve legal disputes. When parties agree to settle a case, they are effectively contracting for the right to avoid a trial. Id. 812. See also Zauner v. Brewer, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 049135 (Gill, J., August 11, 1992) ( 1992 Ct.Sup. 7544) ( 7 Conn. L. Rptr. 251).
In Zauner, the Court discussed the enforceability of settlement agreements as follows:
It is well recognized that an agreement to settle a lawsuit, voluntarily entered into, is binding upon the parties. Once reached, the agreement cannot be repudiated by either party. Rather, such an agreement will be summarily enforced by the court. A settlement agreement is a legally enforceable contract to settle, with consideration predicated upon mutuality of agreement. Indeed, such agreements are favored by the law. Furthermore, a settlement agreement is binding upon the parties even if one party to the agreement subsequently changes her mind and seeks to rescind or repudiate said agreement. Additionally, a public policy exists by which settlement agreements are advocated . . . It is the duty of the courts rather to encourage than to discourage parties in resorting to compromise as a mode of adjusting conflicting claims; and the nature or extent of the rights of each should not be nicely scrutinized. Courts should, so far as they can do so legally and properly, support agreements which have for their object the amicable settlement of doubtful rights by parties; the consideration for such agreements is not only valuable, but highly meritorious. They are encouraged because they promote peace, and when there is no fraud, and the parties meet on equal terms and adjust their differences, the court will not overlook the compromise, but will hold the parties concluded by the settlement. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Zauner v. Brewer, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 049135 (Gill, J., August 11, 1992) ( 1992 Ct.Sup. 7544, 7546-547).
In this case, the agreement did not contemplate the reinstatement of the tenancy. Under the Plaintiff's policy, "only those occupants who have not entered into a Stipulated Judgment with the Housing Authority within the past five (5) years will be allowed to enter into a Stipulated Judgment which provides for re-instatement as a tenant in good standing upon successful completion of the terms . . ." The Defendant had previously entered into a stipulated agreement with the Plaintiff on August 5, 2003. Throughout her tenancy, the Defendant had problems making timely payments.
The Court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Having considered the law and equity, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Amend Stipulated Agreement.