JACK W. FISCHER, JUDGE.
In both files, the defendant, Joseph Elcuri has asked that the prejudgment remedy, which was ordered by the court, Holzberg, J., be vacated. The other parties, who consist of Michael DeLuca, Eraclito Amadeo Rapuano and Filomena Rapuano, object.
The prejudgment remedy at issue came into being due to an agreement of the parties that the parties would not dispose of their respective real estate interests pending the outcome of the litigation. Thereafter, the parties agreed to let Elcuri sell his property and later, withdraw $10,000 from the proceeds of the sale; the remainder of the proceeds have been held in escrow by Elcuri's attorney since that time.
Elcuri argues that he has fallen on difficult financial times and needs the funds held in the escrow account and "[t]hat there is no probable cause that a judgment will incur against [him]."
The other parties, citing Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. 336, 339 (1990) argue that the agreement of the parties was essentially a stipulated judgment which should not be disturbed by the court. This court agrees.
"`It necessarily follows that if the judgment conforms to the stipulation it cannot be altered or set aside without the consent of all the parties, unless it is shown that the stipulation was obtained by fraud, accident or mistake.' Bryan v. Reynolds, 143 Conn. 456, 460-61 (1956)." Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. at 340 (other citations omitted).
The defendant Elcuri has presented nothing to suggest that the stipulation that was accepted by the court was obtained by fraud, accident or mistake. Therefore the motion to vacate the order is denied.
CT Page 6020