Skip to the content

Richard Order | Appellate Win

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed a judgment secured by UKS Shareholder Richard S. Order in Wittman, et al. v. Intense Movers, et al., 202 Conn. App. 87 (2021)

Our clients had a major falling-out with fellow shareholders in Intense Movers, a Connecticut moving company operating in Brooklyn, New York.  After trying for months to resolve the dispute, Attorney Order sued to dissolve the corporation and also asserted shareholder derivative claims to recoup company funds misappropriated for personal use.

Eventually, the parties met and reached a settlement memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding requiring a payout over time for the purchase of our clients’ shares, with a substantial down payment.  After a month of haggling over the terms of the written Settlement Agreement, the defendants agreed to all the terms but then reneged and refused to sign the Settlement Agreement, claiming that it was understood the settlement was dependent on an unwritten contingency of a loan to make the down payment, which they claimed they were unable to obtain.

Attorney Order then made a motion to enforce the settlement based on the Memorandum of Understanding that the parties signed at the settlement meeting and as expounded in the final version of a written Settlement Agreement.  The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of our clients, and the defendants appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the signed Memorandum of Understanding contained no contingency, that defendants mentioned no contingency during the following month of their nitpicking over the language of the Settlement Agreement, and that they stated they would sign the Settlement Agreement “ASAP” once Attorney Order made one final small change, which he did.