Edwin St. Germain v. Camilla Ross et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The defendants, Camilla Ross and Jack Ross, request, pursuant to Practice Book § 6–5, a determination by the trial court that the judgment in this action, as it relates to the duties and obligations of Camilla and Jack Ross, has been fully satisfied.   This motion was supported by an affidavit.

The plaintiff, Edwin St. Germaine, opposes this motion on several grounds.   First, subsequent to the filing of this motion, the plaintiff filed a notice of intent to appeal from the trial court's (Cosgrove, J.) refusal to open a stipulated judgment that was entered into on July 1, 2013.   The plaintiff also objects on the grounds that the court's determination that a judgment has been satisfied might be prejudicial to his appeal rights;  and that the defendant's motion is one-sided in that it seeks a determination from this trial court in favor of the Ross' only.   Mr. St. Germain asserts that this motion should have been filed with the Appellate Court even though it was filed before any appeals were taken.   Finally, the self-represented plaintiff asserts “the egregious acts carried out by the defendant Ross against the plaintiff has caused the plaintiff to forfeit value on the asset received.”

A.

Practice Book § 6–5 Notation of Satisfaction, provides that “the judicial authority may, upon motion, make a determination that the judgment has been satisfied.”   The judgment in this case is based upon a stipulation signed by the plaintiff and the defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, which stipulation was submitted to the court for review and approval.¹

The court notes that throughout this litigation, the plaintiff has been represented by competent counsel.   During this period of time the plaintiff also maintained a personal appearance in the file.

On July 1, 2013, this court, Cosgrove, J., was requested by the plaintiff, Edwin St. Germain, and the defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, to enter judgment based upon their signed stipulation.   The stipulation (Pleading No. 225) was reviewed in open court in the presence of counsel and parties and was approved and entered as a judgment of the court.   The stipulation, which was signed individually by the parties contained three paragraphs.   The first paragraph contained language effectuating mutual releases between Edwin St. Germain and Camilla and Jack Ross. The second paragraph of the stipulation provided to the plaintiff or his designee the right but not the obligation to purchase the premises at 276 Washington Street, Norwich, Connecticut from the defendants under certain specific terms and conditions.

The court notes that in paragraph three, the parties agreed that any relief to the terms of the stipulated judgment in this case would be solely by post-judgment motion filed in this case.   The third paragraph of the stipulation provides in part:  “(a)s stated above, it is the intent of the parties that this agreement shall resolve all claims among them.   Neither party shall bring any civil action against the other regarding the obligations imposed by this agreement.   Relief, if any, shall be available solely by a post-judgment motion filed in this case.   In the event either party files such a motion seeking to modify, alter or delay the provisions of this agreement, that party shall be liable to the other for attorneys fees and costs should the court deny relief.”

With regard to the obligations contained in paragraph two of the stipulation for judgment, defendants have filed the uncontroverted affidavit of the closing attorney, that premises located at 276 Washington Street, Norwich, Connecticut, had been conveyed by the defendants to the party designated by the plaintiff, Edwin St. Germain, on August 28, 2013.   There is no evidence before this court that the defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, had failed in any way to comply with the terms and conditions spelled out in paragraph two of the stipulation for judgment that was approved by the court.   Further, examination of the records of the court in this file does not disclose any attempt by defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, to open or modify the July 1, 2013, judgment that would evidence violation of paragraph 3 of the stipulation.   There is no evidence that any obligations created by the judgment of this court remain to be performed by Camilla and Jack Ross.

The record does reflect that on July 22, 2013, that the plaintiff, Edwin St. Germain, made a motion to open and modify the judgment.   There was a hearing on that motion on August 19, 2013.   The court (Cosgrove, J.) denied the plaintiff's request to open and modify the judgment.   In accordance with paragraph three of stipulation, the court thereafter ordered the defendants to file a request for attorneys fees as allowed under the terms of this stipulated judgment.   The court conducted hearing and entered an award of counsel fees in the amount of $4,500.00.   In an effort to encourage the parties to bring to a conclusion this contentious litigation, the court provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to satisfy this award of counsel fees under paragraph via the agreement by payment of the lesser sum if that sum was paid on or before September 3, 2013.  (See Order # 233.50.)

B.

The court finds that the mere filing of a notice of intent to appeal or an actual appeal does not deprive it of jurisdiction to a motion such as the one presently filed by the defendants prior to the time that those actions were taken by the plaintiff.   It is apparent from the above review of the pleadings and affidavit filed with this motion that the defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, have fully satisfied and complied with all affirmative obligations placed upon them by the judgment that they voluntarily requested that the court enter in this file.

While the granting of this motion may prejudice the plaintiff's “appeal rights,” the court is satisfied that the motion has merit for the reasons previously stated.   The court, at the August 19, 2013 postjudgment hearing, considered the plaintiff's allegations of “egregious conduct on the part of the defendants” and found those claims to be without merit.   The court is satisfied it retains the power to rule on this motion.

This motion is granted.   The clerk may note on its records that the judgment in this case as it pertains to the defendants, Camilla and Jack Ross, has been satisfied.

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The case remains open as to the other named defendants..  FN1. The case remains open as to the other named defendants.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.