Alers v. Bemer

── Alers v. Bemer ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 12, 2026 Author: Moll Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Alers v. Bemer ANTONIO ALERS v. BRUCE J. BEMER (AC 47607) Moll, Seeley and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint and on the defendant’s counterclaim, both alleging breach of contract. The parties had previously executed a settlement agreement that required the defendant to make two payments to the plaintiff and included nondisparagement and confidentiality clauses. Shortly after the defendant made the first payment, the plaintiff’s attorney, F, made posts on his law firm’s website and Facebook page regarding the parties’ settlement. After discovering F’s posts, the defendant did not make the second payment to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract. The defendant, alleging that F’s posts breached the terms of the settlement agreement and he was therefore excused from making the second payment to the plaintiff under the agreement, filed a counterclaim. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that F was not acting as an agent of the plaintiff when he disclosed confidential information stemming from and relating to the settlement agreement on his law firm’s website and Facebook page. Held: The trial court’s finding that the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that F was acting as the plaintiff’s agent when he made the online publications was not clearly erroneous, as the record contained no evidence that F acted at the plaintiff’s request, for the plaintiff’s benefit or in furtherance of the business for which the plaintiff had retained him, and, therefore, the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was liable for F’s conduct in breaching the terms of the settlement agreement failed. Argued December 4, 2025—officially released May 12, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and transferred to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket, where the defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Bellis, J.; judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint and on the counterclaim, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Corinne Burlingham, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque and, on the brief, Michael S. Taylor and Eric P. Anderson, for the appellant (defend