Central Connecticut Teachers Federal Credit Union v. Grant
Docket: 10309
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; April 28, 1992; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Central Connecticut Teachers Federal Credit Union, as the successor to Colt Employees Federal Credit Union, is appealing a trial court judgment regarding a promissory note. The plaintiff argues that the trial court incorrectly modified an agreed-upon stipulation that set monthly payments at $200, first reducing the payments to $75, and then later increasing them to $150 upon the plaintiff's motion to correct. The underlying facts indicate that the plaintiff holds a promissory note from the defendant, who defaulted on payments, prompting the plaintiff to seek the remaining balance. A stipulation, endorsed by both parties, was filed and granted by the court without a hearing, which included a judgment for the principal amount plus fees and stipulated for monthly payments of $200. However, the court's order deviated from this agreement. The excerpt emphasizes that a stipulated judgment acts as a binding contract between the parties and that any modifications or interpretations of such stipulations fall under the trial court's purview, subject to appellate review under the clearly erroneous standard. This review involves assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings.
A finding is deemed clearly erroneous if the court, after reviewing the entire record, has a firm conviction that a mistake has occurred, as established in Buddenhagen v. Luque and further supported by cases such as Web Press Services Corporation v. New London Motors, Inc. and Nelson v. Nelson. The role of a judge extends beyond being an arbitrator; they act as a minister of justice, allowing them to disregard agreements if warranted. Typically, stipulations by parties should be accepted by the court, as seen in Central Coat, Apron, Linen Service, Inc. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. If the court cannot accept a stipulation, it must document its reasons for disapproval and allow parties the chance to present relevant evidence before issuing a judgment. In this case, the parties reached an agreement on the defendant's debt payment, yet the trial court erred by issuing a judgment for monthly payments without informing the parties of its disapproval or giving them the opportunity to address the issues. Therefore, the appellate court reverses the trial court's judgment and remands the case for a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for judgment, rendering the second claim regarding increased payments moot. The other judges concurred in this opinion.
