Connecticut court binds a former condo board president to a settlement she refused to sign
Connecticut court binds a former condo board president to a settlement she refused to sign
2026-09-09 · Connecticut · Courts
A former Connecticut condominium board president who refused to sign a settlement her lawyer had negotiated is bound by it anyway, the Appellate Court held in a decision released August 4, 2026.1
Nunez v. Brown-White, AC 48330, 240 Conn. App. 685, is the year's clearest illustration of how expensive intra-board conflict becomes once it reaches court — and of how little control a litigant retains once counsel is negotiating.
What happened
Soledad Nunez was a resident, association member and former president of the executive board of Seaview Village Condominium Association, Inc. She sued a fellow board member, Gwendolyn Brown-White, and the association itself — suing Brown-White both individually and in her capacity as board secretary.
The complaint ran to four counts: invasion of privacy by false light, defamation per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. She alleged a “campaign of intimidation, harassment, abuse, and blatantly false narratives.”
Her lawyer settled the case. She declined to sign. The defendants moved to enforce the settlement, and the trial court held a hearing under Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993).
The holding
The panel — Seeley, Wilson and Flynn, Js., opinion by Judge Seeley — affirmed. The trial court's finding that the parties had reached a meeting of the minds was not clearly erroneous.1
Counsel's emails to opposing counsel, memorialising the pretrial terms and expressly accepting the offer, were properly relied on. The client's failure to sign was unavailing. Her unsworn declaration disputing her lawyer's actual authority carried no evidentiary weight, and she never sought an articulation of the trial court's decision.
The part that should worry board members
Two features of this case are worth separating, because they carry different lessons.
A lawyer's email can close a deal. Under Audubon, a settlement agreed by counsel and memorialised in correspondence can be enforced against a client who has not signed. That is not new law in Connecticut, but it is rarely encountered so cleanly. A board member who instructs counsel and then changes their mind at the signature stage may find the decision has already been made.
An unsworn denial is not evidence. Nunez disputed that her lawyer had actual authority. Because the declaration was unsworn, it carried no weight, and because she sought no articulation, the record on appeal could not support her.
CUTPA against a board member, and against the association
The claim structure is the other reason this case matters to Connecticut associations. Nunez pleaded CUTPA against both a sitting director and the association itself, alongside defamation per se and false light.
The Appellate Court decided the appeal on settlement enforcement and did not reach the merits, so this is not authority that such claims succeed. What it establishes is that they get filed, get litigated, and get to the Appellate Court — which is the practical exposure a volunteer board faces regardless of outcome.
Defamation per se is worth a particular note. It does not require proof of special damages, which lowers the barrier considerably for a claim arising from things said about a fellow director.
What associations can actually do about this
Check what the D&O policy covers. Directors and officers cover for a Connecticut association frequently excludes or sublimits defamation and personal-injury style claims, and CUTPA claims sit awkwardly across the wording. The time to find out is not after a complaint arrives naming a director personally.
Notice the dual capacity. Brown-White was sued both individually and as board secretary. Where a claim reaches a director in both capacities, the association's interests and the individual's can diverge — and a single settlement negotiated by one lawyer for both is where that divergence surfaces.
Have somewhere for a dispute to go before it becomes a lawsuit. Connecticut has no state ombudsman or dispute-resolution forum for community association conflicts. A 2025 bill proposing a mediation pilot within the Probate Court system died in the Judiciary Committee without a hearing.2 Until something fills that gap, the Superior Court is the only forum, and this case is what that costs.
What to watch next
The merits were never reached, so the substantive questions remain open: whether CUTPA reaches the internal governance conduct of a Connecticut condominium association and its directors, and what the boundary is between robust board disagreement and defamation per se.
Those questions are being asked with increasing frequency. The Department of Consumer Protection's own March 2026 guidance names inconsistent enforcement, conflicts of interest and poor communication among the most common complaints it receives about Connecticut associations — while noting it has no jurisdiction to hear them.3
Related Connecticut HOA Topics
- Nunez v. Brown-White, AC 48330, 240 Conn. App. 685 — slip opinion, Connecticut Appellate Court (officially released August 4, 2026) ↩
- HB 6166 (2025), pilot program for mediation of condominium disputes in the Probate Courts — died in the Judiciary Committee ↩
- Most Common Homeowners Association (HOA) Complaints, Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (March 11, 2026) ↩
Stay on top of Connecticut HOA law
Every week: new Connecticut legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.