Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** SUFFIELD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. NATIONAL LOAN INVESTORS, L.P. (AC 20007)
Foti, Spear and Peters, Js. Argued September 19--officially released November 28, 2000 Counsel

Richard P. Weinstein, with whom was Nathan A. Schatz, for the appellant-appellee (plaintiff). Paul M. Geraghty, for the appellee-appellant (defendant).
Opinion

PETERS, J. The dispositive issue in this civil appeal is the construction of a payment term in a stipulated judgment. The payment term limited monetary liability in this case to the proceeds of a judgment yet to be rendered in a pending case that would determine the liability of a third party to the putative payor. Specifically, the question is whether the right to recover such proceeds includes proceeds that resulted from a settlement of the third party action during the pendency of a retrial subsequent to appellate reversal of the original

judgment against the third party. We agree with the trial court's resolution of this issue. The plaintiff, Suffield Development Associates Limited Partnership, brought a declaratory judgment action to clarify its obligation to pay the defendant, National Loan Investors Limited Partnership, $200,000 from the settlement of its claims against Society for Savings (bank).1 The defendant asserted its right to payment. After a trial, the court rendered judgment against the plaintiff, from which the plaintiff appeals. The defendant has filed a cross appeal challenging the court's calculation of the amount of its recovery. The court's memorandum of decision and the record reveal the following undisputed facts. On December 17, 1996, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a stipulated judgment2 to settle a foreclosure action.3 At that time, the plaintiff had succeeded at trial in a lender liability action against the bank, but the bank had filed an appeal that had not yet been resolved. Subsequently, on appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on one issue. Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Society for Savings, 243 Conn. 832, 846, 708 A.2d 1361 (1998). Before the commencement of the new trial, the plaintiff and the bank entered into a settlement of the lender liability case. Shortly thereafter, the defendant brought the present action asserting a claim of entitlement to a portion of the proceeds from the settlement in the lender liability action pursuant to the terms of the stipulated judgment entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant in the foreclosure action. The plaintiff objected to the defendant's claim on the ground that the deficiency judgment in favor of the defendant could be satisfied only from the proceeds of a ``certain Lender Liability Judgment'' in a ``certain civil action.'' According to the plaintiff, the decision of our Supreme Court reversing that ``certain Lender Liability Judgment'' had the effect of extinguishing that judgment in its entirety so that there no longer was any basis for any monetary recovery from the plaintiff. The trial court in this case concluded, as the defendant had argued, that the proceeds from the settlement of the lender liability action pending retrial after reversal constituted proceeds from the ``certain Lender Liability Judgment'' described in the stipulated judgment. Accordingly, it rendered judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay $200,000 to the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed on the merits, and the defendant has cross appealed with respect to the amount of the judgment. I PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL On appeal, the plaintiff's principal argument is that

the court misconstrued the phrase ``a certain Lender Liability Judgment'' in the stipulated judgment. Because the plaintiff's appeal turns on the construction of documentary evidence of the terms of a stipulated judgment, which is a contract, our review of the court's judgment is plenary and its language is accorded its common meaning and usage. HLO Land Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hartford, 248 Conn. 350, 356

Download Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P

Connecticut Law