## Facts

- Multiple related actions arose from disputes over management and oversight of a family limited partnership and several family trusts.
- During the litigation, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations toward a global resolution.
- Defendants moved to enforce an alleged global settlement, asserting that plaintiffs’ attorney had apparent authority to bind all plaintiffs.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that plaintiffs’ counsel had apparent authority to make settlement proposals, conduct negotiations, and bind plaintiffs to the settlement.
- The trial court enforced the settlement over plaintiffs’ objections, including during a period when jury selection was underway.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the consolidated appeals were transferred for review by the state’s highest court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiffs’ counsel had apparent authority to negotiate and bind plaintiffs to a global settlement absent sufficient manifestations by the plaintiffs to opposing counsel.
2. Whether plaintiffs had a constitutional right to a jury trial on the existence and enforceability of the alleged settlement agreement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the orders enforcing the settlement.
- The court held the trial court’s finding of apparent authority was not clearly erroneous.
- The court held there was no constitutional right to a jury trial on the existence or enforceability of the settlement because enforcement sought equitable relief akin to specific performance.

## Legal Principles

- Apparent authority requires manifestations by the principal that reasonably cause a third party, acting in good faith, to believe the agent has authority to bind the principal; the focus is on the principal’s outward conduct, not private attorney-client limitations unknown to the other side.
- A principal’s course of conduct may support apparent authority when the principal permits counsel to act as authorized in settlement communications and does not notify the opposing side of any limitation or termination of that authority.
- Opposing counsel may reasonably rely on an attorney’s representations in settlement negotiations in light of professional obligations, absent notice of lack of authority.
- A settlement may be enforceable without a signed integrated writing if the parties reached agreement on material terms, even if they contemplated later formal documentation.
- Motions to enforce a settlement seek equitable relief analogous to specific performance; factual disputes necessary to decide that equitable relief are for the court, not a jury, and do not trigger the state constitutional jury-trial guarantee.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of a global settlement, concluding that plaintiffs’ conduct supported a reasonable belief that their attorney had apparent authority to finalize the agreement, and it rejected a claimed jury-trial right because settlement enforcement is an equitable matter decided by the judge.


Ackerman v. Sobol Fam. P'ship, LLP, 298 Conn. 495, 4 A.3d 288 (Conn. 2010)