Edgewood Properties, LLC v. Dynamic Multimedia, LLC
Citations
- 226 Conn. App. 583
Syllabus
The defendants appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court rendered for the plaintiff, who commenced this summary process evic- tion proceeding. The defendants entered into a written lease agreement with O with respect to certain residential property. O died and the property was sold to the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff demanded that the defendants vacate the property, the defendants refused to do so, and the plaintiff served the defendants with notices to quit. After trial commenced, the court denied the defendants' motions in limine to pres- ent evidence of an alleged settlement and to summarily enforce a settle- ment agreement. Held: 1. This court concluded that, although the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of possession of the property based on lapse of time, the defendants were not entitled to relief with respect to this claim: the only evidence of a written lease agreement was the agreement between O and the defendants, an agreement that ended, pursuant to its terms, when title to the property was transferred to the plaintiff, and, accordingly, the trial court erred in finding the existence of a rental agreement between the parties and the judgment could not be sustained on the ground of lapse of time; moreover, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in its favor on the alternative ground that the defendants' privilege or right to occupy the property had expired, as it was undisputed that the property was sold to the plaintiff and the defendants remained in possession of the property. 2. The trial court properly denied the defendants' motion in limine to present evidence of a purported settlement agreement between the parties: although the motion in limine described the evidence the defendants wanted to present, it did not address the prejudice that could result, and the court reasonably considered this motion in light of the defendants' motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement and d
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[t]he trial court has inherent authority to control the proceedings before it to ensure that there [is] no prejudice or inordinate delay’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Suarez; Flynn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-06-15· cited 144×
- Housing Authority of East Hartford v. HirdConnecticut Appellate Court· 1988-01-05· cited 71×
- Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-10-21· cited 48×
- Borst v. RuffSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1950-12-19· cited 45×
- 669 Atlantic Street Associates v. Atlantic-Rockland Stamford AssociatesConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-09-17· cited 29×
- Christian v. GouldinConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-08-27· cited 26×
- Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-14· cited 22×
- Kalas v. CookConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-06-18· cited 19×
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. VaszilSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-07-11· cited 14×
- Vidiaki, LLC v. Just Breakfast & Things!!! LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-01-17· cited 10×
- Vance v. TassmerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-04-19· cited 10×
- Reiner v. ReinerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-05-28· cited 9×
- FJK Associates v. KarkoskiConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-03-02· cited 8×
- J. M. v. E. M.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-12-06· cited 6×
- Platt v. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-03-24· cited 4×
- White v. Department of Children & FamiliesConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-07-17· cited 4×
- Krasko v. KonkosConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-09· cited 3×
- Housing Authority v. NealConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-04-19· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.