Page 28 - CLT081020

28 ¦ AUGUST 10, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

of material fact regarding their unclean hands FAMILY LAW
special defense. Therefore, the lower court prop-
erly determined that plaintiff ’s alleged miscon- Court Affirmed Termination of Alimony
duct did not sufficiently relate to the making, Payments in Family Law Litigation
validity, or enforcement of the mortgage. The
court noted that defendants conceded that CASE: Fazio v. Fazio
plaintiff had the right to commence foreclosure COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
on the ground that defendants had defaulted on DOC. NO.: AC 42635
their mortgage debt and that the requirement COURT OPINION BY: Bright
that defendants obtain a small business loan to DATE: July 28, 2020 • PAGES: 11
pay down the mortgage debt had been agreed to Plaintiff and defendant’s marriage had previ-
in the original loan documents. ously dissolved. Their separation agreement had
been incorporated into the dissolution judgment,
and provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION unallocated alimony and child support until the

Court Reversed Lower Court’s remarriage or cohabitation of the plaintiff or
Judgment in Disability Discrimination May 31, 2013, whichever occurred earlier. The
trial court concluded that plaintiff was cohabit-
ing, the separation agreement was clear and am-
Lawsuit, Finding Court Relied on biguous, and ordered the immediate termination
Improperly Admitted Evidence of alimony. Plaintiff appealed and the court af-
firmed. Plaintiff first argued that the trial court
CASE: Kovachich v. Dep’t of Mental Health & Addiction Serv. erred by concluding it was bound by the finding
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court of cohabitation made by a prior judge. The court
DOC. NO.: AC 41976
COURT OPINION BY: Alvord disagreed, finding that she did not raise this find-
DATE: July 28, 2020 • PAGES: 25 ing in her prior appeal, and therefore no longer
Plaintiff suffered from allergic and non-allergic had the ability to raise the finding as an issue on
rhinitis and asthma and was sensitive to scents. remand. The court then held that the trial court
She requested a scent-free work environment and did not err by failing to make a factual finding as
HEPA filter for her office while working for de- to the parties’ intent as to whether the relevant
fendant. Pursuant to the Americans with Dis- article in the separation agreement incorporated
abilities Act, defendant’s review committee ap- the remedial aspects of the relevant statute. The
proved plaintiff’s request but some employees court held the trial court was not required to state
did not comply with the scent-free component. the parties’ intent specifically, and it was clear that
Plaintiff sued defendant for a violation of Con- the lower court did properly consider their intent
necticut Fair Employment Practices Act, alleging based on the evidence presented and its credibil-
that defendant discriminated against her on the ity determinations. Therefore, the court affirmed
basis of her disability as a result of their failure the lower court’s judgment.
to provide her with reasonable accommodation,
and retaliated against her for filing a complaint.
The lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff REAL ESTATE

and both parties appealed to the Appellate Court. Court Affirmed Judgment in Private
The court reversed. The court found that the trial Nuisance Suit, Finding That a Ground
court improperly admitted evidence of settlement
communications between the parties, precluded
the defendant from cross-examining plaintiff with Lease Gave Control to Other Entity Not
deposition testimony that was changed through Implicated in Lawsuit
an errata sheet, and erroneously determined that
hearsay statements by any state employee were CASE: Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
admissible. The court noted that the general rule DOC. NO.: AC 42912
is that evidence of attempted settlements is not COURT OPINION BY: Moll
admissible against either party, and here the lower DATE: July 28, 2020 • PAGES: 14
court impermissibly considered it when determin- Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and pri-
ing liability. Therefore, the court reversed the vate nuisance. They alleged that the defendant’s
judgment and remanded the case. abutting property consisted of an unused lot with

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune