State v. Henderson
No known authority supported the proposition that a municipality was bound by the terms of a stipulated judgment entered into by the state to which the municipality was not a party and to which it did not, in any other way, manifest its assent. The state of Connecticut filed an action to abate a public nuisance against certain defendants including Daniel Henderson regarding real property known as 2041 North Broad Street in Meriden, or the "2041 Club." The court rendered judgment in accordance with a stipulated judgment entered into by the state and property owners. The judgment provided that the business would remain closed and that any future purchaser of the property would have to be approved by the Division of Criminal Justice and comply with use restrictions. The city of Meriden was not a signatory to the stipulated judgment. The Division of Criminal Justice later approved a contract purchaser, Jess Daenekindt. The contract to sell the property was not consummated because Meriden officials informed Daenekindt that no adult business would be permitted at that property. Daniel Henderson filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment. The court denied the motion without issuing a written decision, noting only that the defendant had no standing to pursue the motion. The court denied motions for reconsideration, for articulation and for contempt. Daniel Henderson appealed. He failed to file a motion with the Appellate Court pursuant to Practice Book §66-5 to direct the trial court to articulate the grounds for its decision. Based on the record, no evidence supported the claim that the trial court improperly denied the motion. The record did not substantiate the allegation that the city was bound by the terms of the stipulated judgment. The transcript of the proceedings when the court approved the stipulated judgment contained nothing to suggest that the city formally appeared at that hearing. To prevail, would require a demonstration that the city was bound by the terms of a contract to which it was not a party and to which it did not, in any other way, manifest its assent. No authority was known supporting such a proposition.