Page 35 - CLT032221

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 22, 2021 ¦ 35

as that at issue in the instant case, thereby re- A former employee of a mortgage company,
moving the matter from an arbitrator’s purview, who failed to maintain his licensing require-
it remains free to negotiate for the inclusion of ments, failed to prove on appeal that the appel-
an appropriate provision in the collective bar- late court had jurisdiction over his matter be-
gaining agreement that would achieve that re- cause he could not obtain practical relief. The
sult.’’ However, the employer must abide by the plaintiff, Village Mortgage Company, claimed
arbitrators’ determinations regarding just cause that the defendant, James Veneziano, failed
and the appropriate remedy for that conduct to comply with the corporate bylaws when he
until that provision is included in the CBA. failed to keep his licensing requirements sat-
isfied. Per stipulation, the trial court ordered
Veneziano to comply with the licensing agree-
APPELLATE COURT ments by a certain date or he would be ordered

to surrender his stock in the company. When
Veneziano failed to adequately comply with
CONTRACTS the order, the court ordered his shares to be re-
turned to Village Mortgage. When Veneziano
Third Party Beneficiary’s Breach of appealed, Village Mortgage argued, and the
Contract Suit Reversed on Appeal court agreed, that the appeal was moot because
the only issue was ownership of stock, which
was already turned over to Village Mortgage
CASE: Anderson v. Town of Bloomfield in another action, and thus, no practical relief
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42905 could be rendered.
COURT OPINION BY: Bright
DATE: March 09, 2021 • PAGES: 12
FAMILY LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE
A contract between a town and a roofer, intended
to benefit a third party, was ambiguous enough
to warrant reversal on a dismissal for standing. Appeals Court Rules No Automatic Stay
The plaintiff, Joann Anderson, applied for a pro- in Periodic Alimony Case
gram offered by her town, Bloomfield, Connecti-
cut, to act on her behalf to secure a contractor to CASE: Bouffard v. Lewis
fix her roof. As part of the program, the contract COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
was between the town and a roofing company. A DOC. NO.: AC 44174
few months later, it was discovered that the roof COURT OPINION BY: Suarez
was defective, and the home became uninhabit- DATE: March 09, 2021 • PAGES: 7
able. Anderson brought suit against the roofing
company for breach of contract, arguing that she A husband, who appealed his ex-wife’s mo-
was a third-party beneficiary. The lower court tion for contempt relating to failure to pay
dismissed the action, ruling that Anderson did alimony and child support, was not entitled
not have standing as there was no evidence of in- to an automatic appellate stay. The defendant,
tent to create an obligation between the roofing Jamie Lewis, and the plaintiff, Kristy Bouf-
company and Anderson in the contract. On ap- fard, dissolved their marriage in 2017, and
peal, the court reversed, finding that the contract agreed that Lewis would pay monthly alimony
was ambiguous enough to warrant an evidentiary and child support payments. In 2019, Lewis
hearing before a fact finder. filed for modification, arguing his income
had decreased, and thereafter, Bouffard filed
for contempt, arguing Lewis stopped making
payments. In March 2020, the court denied
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE • CIVIL APPEALS Lewis’s motion and granted Bouffard’s mo-
tion. Lewis thereafter filed a motion to rear-
Stock Claim Deemed Moot on Appeal gue, which was denied in July 2020, and he
as No Relief Could be Granted subsequently appealed. In April 2020, Bouf-
fard filed a second contempt motion, to be
heard in October 2020. In October 2020, the
CASE: Vill. Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano court ruled that the March 2020 order stayed
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court Lewis’s obligation to pay. The court on appeal
DOC. NO.: AC 40701 reversed, ruling there was no automatic stay in
COURT OPINION BY: Suarez
DATE: March 09, 2021 • PAGES: 14 alimony and child support arrearages.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune