Page 37 - CLT022420

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS FEBRUARY 24, 2020 ¦ 37

The court denied plaintiff’s motions to open judg- Plaintiffs sued defendant for breach of con-
ment and for additur and granted defendant’s tract over a purchase of real property. Plain-
motions for determination of satisfaction of judg- tiff sought an order of specific performance
ment and for remittitur, finding that defendant’s which the court granted. The court found that
prior satisfaction of the jury’s award in favor of the all the equities in this case were with the
decedent’s estate rendered that judgment final, plaintiff. Plaintiff was approached by the sell-
precluding additur. Plaintiff, acting both individu- er’s agent, plaintiff made an offer, and then
ally and as administrator of her late husband’s es- the defendant breached on the eve of closing.
tate, sued defendant for wrongful death and loss Defendant argued that plaintiff should have
of consortium, alleging that her husband died disclosed that he purchased the property next
as the result of the medical negligence of defen- door to the seller, but the court dismissed this
dant’s employees. The case was tried to a jury, argument as not supported by legal authority
which rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor and or common sense. The court ordered specific
awarded $1.2 million in noneconomic damages to performance of the purchase and sale agree-
decedent’s estate and $4.5 million in damages to ment entered into by the parties.
plaintiff on her loss of consortium claim. Defen-
dant paid the $1.2 million judgment to decedent’s
estate and moved for remittitur of the loss of con- CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS

sortium award, arguing it was excessive. The court Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
denied the motion, and defendant appealed. The Judgment Granted In Lawsuit
Supreme Court reversed, holding that “a spou-
sal loss of consortium award in a wrongful death
action presumptively should not be substantially Regarding Defendant’s Breach Of A
greater than the wrongful death award.” The Su- Promissory Note
preme Court remanded for reconsideration of de-
fendant’s motion for remittitur. On remand, plain- CASE: Keating v. Matusik
tiff filed a motion to open judgment and a motion COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6087070
for additur, arguing that to the extent that the loss COURT OPINION BY: Shapiro
of consortium award was excessive, it reflected a DATE: January 29, 2020 • PAGES: 11
finding of damages that should properly have been Plaintiff sought to recover a claimed balance
awarded to decedent’s estate. Upon reconsidera- on a promissory note executed by the defen-
tion, the court granted defendant’s motion for re- dant in October 2011. The note was secured
mittitur and reduced the verdict on plaintiff’s loss by a mortgage on real property. Plaintiff al-
of consortium claim from $4.5 million to $2.85 leged that the defendant failed to pay real
million. The court also granted defendant’s newly estate taxes to the Town of Enfield, which
filed motion for a determination of satisfaction of constituted a default of the defendant’s obli-
judgment as to the award in favor of decedent’s gations under the note and mortgage. Defen-
estate, finding that defendant had paid that judg- dant claimed plaintiff failed to demonstrate
ment in full and that decedent’s estate had accept- that he breached the note. Plaintiff filed a
ed that payment. Under these circumstances, the motion for partial summary judgment as to
court explained, plaintiff’s motions to reopen and liability and as to the defendant’s special de-
for additur had to be denied. Defendant’s satis- fenses. The court granted plaintiff ’s motion in
faction of the judgment in favor of the estate ren- part. Defendant admitted that he did not pay
dered that judgment final. the real estate taxes. However, he argued that

the note did not include a provision for such
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • REAL ESTATE payment. The court disagreed, citing the ex-
plicit terms of the mortgage that required the
defendant to pay “all taxes.” In defendant’s
Court Ordered Specific Performance of fourth special defense, defendant alleged that
Real Estate Purchase Agreement plaintiff accepted the sale of the property
as settlement in full of the debt due under
CASE: Mouta v. Partners for Hartford Renaissance the note. Plaintiff argued that there was no
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford evidence that she agreed to accept something
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6108914
COURT OPINION BY: Santos less than the full amount of the debt and the
DATE: January 24, 2020 • PAGES: 6 court found that the agreement about the sale

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune