George Kudelchuk v. The Greensulators, Inc. et al. (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT ERIC A. KUDLIS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

BACKGROUND

This matter takes place within the context of litigation initiated by George W. Kudelchuk, III (plaintiff) for the alleged purpose of collecting the balance due on a loan he made to the defendants, Chad J. Whitcomb, Erik A. Kudlis, and Andrew J. Gil, in connection with a new business venture they started as The Greensulators, Inc. (defendants).  That original litigation was brought to a conclusion by a Stipulation dated May 24, 2010, which was accepted and made a judgment of this court by Judge Hendel on May 26, 2010.  That Stipulation, among other things, established the debt as $75,000 and called for specific payments up through April 2010.  The Stipulation also provided for an additional payment of $10,000 if the defendants did not make the specified payments on time.  There were also provisions, not relevant for this matter, relating to judgment liens on real property.  Thereafter, on August 31, 2015, one of the defendants, Eric A. Kudlis, filed the instant Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement (the Motion).

FACTS

A hearing was held on the Motion in this court at New London on November 18, 2015.  The plaintiff and the defendants were well represented by counsel.  From the evidence introduced and the reasonable and logical inferences therefrom and taking into account the court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, the following relevant facts are found.

After the stipulated judgment the defendants, or some of them, made payments on the debt to the plaintiff from time to time, but fell behind in the schedule laid so that by January 9, 2012, they were $7,700 behind.  There were e-mails exchanged about the need for payments.  The defendants communicated to the plaintiff the intent to pay what they owed in full.  However, while they were behind in their payments a defendant received a settlement in a personal injury claim he had pending which made it possible for him to make a substantial payment on the debt.

This is where the issue in this matter arises.  The defendants claim that the plaintiff agreed to accept a payment of $12,000 to settle the entire debt, which at the time was about $24,000.  It is clear that a check in the amount of $12,000 was in fact paid to the plaintiff on or about August 12, 2013.  It was a bank check.  The bank to put a notation “Final Payment” in the memo section of the check.  (Def's Exh. C.) It is found that the plaintiff received the check in an envelope and did not notice the notation when he deposited the check.  The defendants offered no other written evidence as to their claim that the plaintiff had in fact agreed to accept about half of what he was owed to release his claim for the repayment of the entire debt.  The court does not credit the testimony that an agreement was made by the plaintiff in a telephone call under the terms of which he would accept the $12,000 as full payment and thereafter release the parties from their obligation.  The plaintiff in fact declined to sign such a release when presented to him in August 2014.  The evidence indicates that the parties appear to have carefully written their various claims in e-mails some of which were in evidence.  Moreover, if the defendants testimony is to be accepted, they offered the plaintiff no consideration for any such agreement other than the payment of money already owed to the plaintiff.

The court does not find that an agreement was made for the release of the entire debt upon the payment of $12,000 of the debt already due the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Motion of the defendant Kudlis is denied.

Robert C. Leuba, J.T.R.

Leuba, Robert C., J.T.R.