Robert J. Wise v. Town of Simsbury (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this action, there remains one count of the original complaint alleging that the Town of Simsbury breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to honor a proposed settlement agreement (“Agreement”) dated March 22, 2002.

On December 29, 2009, the plaintiff Robert J. Wise filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.   On February 5, 2010 the defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.

The agreement was an attempt to bring to conclusion a series of actions, including an appeal arising from plaintiff's complaint of the use of logos on newspaper delivery tubes placed on plaintiff's property.

At the March 1, 2010 hearing on these motions, the plaintiff made it clear that his primary complaint was that he never received a reasonable settlement offer from the Town in return for his promised withdrawals of then pending actions.   The Town in its Motion for Summary Judgment claimed that plaintiff's remaining count was not sustainable in the absence of an enforceable contract.

Stemming from a dispute over the mail box logos commencing in December 1993 the key events are summarized in an affidavit filed by Robert De Crescenzo dated February 5, 2010, the accuracy of which is not challenged except for the dispute as to whether a good faith offer was made by the Town.

-I-

It is axiomatic that the existence of a valid contract between the parties is a necessary antecedent to any claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, 252 Conn. 789, 793 (2000).  Macumber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620, 638 (2002).

Analyzing the “Agreement” dated March 22, 2002, it is concluded that the document is not a final settlement agreement as claimed by plaintiff.   It simply requires the then first selectman of Simsbury, Thomas Vincent, to propose “reasonable final terms” for settlement of the pending litigation and the appeals taken.   It is at best an agreement to agree.   There are no final terms agreed upon.   The final sentence ends with the phrase “pending completion of the settlement discussions currently underway.”

This court agrees with defendant's claims that the document dated March 22, 2002 did not constitute a final agreement or a resolution of the litigation then pending but only recorded the parties' intention to engage in additional settlement negotiations.

-II-

Moreover it is found, and not disputed, that the Town made several financial offers to plaintiff on March 5, 2003, May 7, 2003 and on July 17, 2008, all of which were rejected by plaintiff, the final rejection made on August 11, 2008 all of which challenge the allegations of lack of good faith.  “To constitute a breach of [the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing] the acts by which a defendant allegedly impedes the plaintiff's right to receive benefits ․ must have been taken in bad faith.”  Alexandre v. Strong, 81 Conn.App. 68, 80 (2004).

-III-

Since there was no enforceable agreement, plaintiff's claim that defendant breached an implied covenant of good faith is not maintainable.   Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Wagner, J., JTR

Wagner, Jerry, J.T.R.