DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV22-6115393-S
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`GESLAINE NAVA
`
`VS.
`
`CLAUDINEI SALVADOR
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`NOVEMBER 8, 2022
`
`MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`
`The Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, Gislaine Nava, respectfully moves that the Court
`
`enforce a Settlement Agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at a
`
`mediation conducted by Hon. Douglas Mintz (ret.) on October 27, 2022. In support of this Motion
`
`to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the defendant represents as follows:
`
`1. The parties have three (3) pending cases between them with the following docket
`
`numbers:
`
`a. FBT-FA08-4026472-S / SALVADOR, CLAUDINEI v. NAVA, GISLAINE
`
`b. FBT-CV-22-6115393-S / NAVA, GISLAINE v. SALVADOR, CLAUDINEI
`
`c. BPH-CV-22-6010175-S / SALVADOR, CLAUDINEA v. NAVA, GISLAINE
`
`2. Each of the pending claims in these actions are inter-related and involve the parties’
`
`interests and claims in the same property and obligations pursuant to their 2009 divorce
`
`judgment.
`
`3. The parties engaged in private mediation for said disputes with Hon. Judge Mintz (ret.),
`
`extensively prepared for same and exchanged discovery in advance of the mediation date, and
`
`then did in fact mediate said disputes in a nearly all-day, in person mediation at Judge Mintz’s
`
`office in Stamford, Connecticut on October 27, 2022.
`
`4.
`
`Importantly, the parties agreed to and executed the terms of the Settlement Agreement set
`
`forth in Exhibit A annexed hereto and made a part hereof. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff began
`
`1
`
`

`

`performing her obligations pursuant to said Agreement by providing the deposit to her counsel
`
`for the sale contemplated therein, engaging the services of a mortgage broker for same, and
`
`removing the agreed upon social media posts.
`
`5.
`
`In the meantime, the parties attempted to coordinate additional details of the Agreement
`
`consistent with and in furtherance of the Agreement (i.e. when the deposit for the sale will be
`
`paid, etc.). Same does not render the Agreement any less enforceable. Ackerman v. Sobol Fam.
`
`P'ship, LLP, 298 Conn. 495, 529 (2010).
`
`6. Now, Defendant Claudinei Salvador is now refusing to perform and/or is breaching two
`
`material terms of the Settlement Agreement:
`
`a. The Agreement clearly and unambiguously states that it applies to the three docket
`numbers and pending actions; however, Defendant is now asking for a new, additional
`general release for unspecified putative claims in other jurisdictions which were never
`even mentioned prior to mediation or signing the Agreement.
`
`b. The Agreement clearly and unambiguously states that all pending claims and defenses
`would be withdrawn with prejudice; however, the Defendant is now asking for a
`stipulated judgment in the action he brought (BPH-CV-22-6010175-S / SALVADOR,
`CLAUDINEA v. NAVA, GISLAINE).
`
`7. The terms of the Agreement are clear and unambiguous. It was subject to extensive
`
`discovery and negotiations, consideration, and the parties executed the terms of the Agreement
`
`the same day, and the Plaintiff has already begun to perform said Agreement. The Defendant
`
`cannot now fail to implement or breach the Agreement and demand additional or different
`
`conditions or terms in order to perform his already-existing obligations under the Agreement. To
`
`not enforce the Agreement would work undue prejudice against the Plaintiff.
`
`8. Additionally, if the Agreement is not enforced, these new unspecified and putative claims
`
`by Defendant would need to be subject to discovery and further litigation – and, as the Defendant
`
`is indicating that these putative claims are in foreign jurisdictions (namely, the parties’ home
`
`2
`
`

`

`country of Brazil) it may be unduly burdensome, prejudicial, or even improper for it to be
`
`litigated in or made subject to Connecticut courts.
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Gislaine Nava, pursuant to well-settled Connecticut caselaw
`
`(see, generally: Audubon Parking Associates Limited Partnership v. Barclay and Stubbs, Inc.,
`
`225 Conn. 804 (1993) and Whitman v. Intense Movers, Inc., 202 Conn.App. 87 (2021), etc.),
`
`hereby moves that the Court enforce the Settlement Agreement.
`
`GISLAINE NAVA
`
`BY: _____________________
`
`Prerna Rao, Esq.
`OMNIA LAW, LLC
`115 Technology Drive
`Suite A303
`Trumbull, CT 06611
`(203) 880-5999
`
`3
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on the above
`date, to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent of electronic
`delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were
`electronically served.
`
`WILLIAMS MAUREEN P LAW OFFICES OF LLC
`35 NUTMEG DRIVE
`SUITE 215
`TRUMBULL, CT 06611
`
`BY: _____________________
`
`Prerna Rao, Esq.
`OMNIA LAW, LLC
`115 Technology Drive
`Suite A303
`Trumbull, CT 06611
`203-880-5999
`Juris No: 439670
`
`4
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`DOCKET NO.: FBT-FAOS-4026472-S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`SALVADOR, CLAUDINEI
`
`v.
`
`NAVA, GISLAINE
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`OCTOBER 27, 2022
`
`DOCKET NO.: BPH-CV22-6010175-5
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`CLAUDINEI SALVADOR
`
`VS.
`
`GISLAINE NAVA
`
`:
`
`:
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`HOUSING SESSION
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`OCTOBER 27, 2022
`
`DOCKET NO.: FBT-CV22-6115393-S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`NAVA, GISLAINE
`
`v.
`
`SALVADOR, CLAUDINEI
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`OCTOBER 27, 2022
`
`MEDIATION TERM SHEET
`
`1. The parties intend this agreement to settle all disputes raised in all the matters above as
`
`well as those that could have been raised in the cases above. Upon the execution of a full
`
`settlement agreement, the matters above will be withdrawn with prejudice.
`
`2. The Mother will not disparage the Father to the children; she will remove from social media
`
`all postings disparaging the Father or his business. Neither party will discuss this agreement
`
`1
`
`

`

`with the children. Neither party will discuss the mediation process or this agreement on
`
`social media.
`
`3. The Father will cooperate with the passport renewal for the children.
`
`4. The Father will fill out any paperwork requested by either daughter for her application to
`
`Pepperdine University or any other college or university. The Father will fill out any
`
`paperwork needed for any financial aid for either daughter.
`
`5. The Father will sell
`
`to the Mother the property located at 377 Ronald Drive, Fairfield
`
`Connecticut by warranty deed for a price of $417,000 with the closing of sale to be on or
`
`before May 15, 2023. The Mother will immediately apply for a mortgage and pursue same
`
`with diligence and shall secure that mortgage no later than April 1, 2023. The property is
`
`sold as is. Each party will be responsible for his or her own closing costs. The Father will
`
`receive the refund of tax escrow, if any. The Superior Court for the Judicial District of
`
`Fairfield at Bridgeport will retain jurisdiction over the effectuation of the sale.
`
`6. The Father will, effective the next renewal date of the children’s current health insurance,
`
`secure and maintain health insurance as available to him through the Connecticut Exchange
`
`or employment at reasonable cost for the children until each reaches the age of 21 years or
`
`graduates from college, whichever sooner occurs. The Father will not be required to spend
`
`more than 7.5% of his weekly net income for the cost of premiums for said insurance for
`
`both children. As soon as each child enrolls in college, she shall be obligated to elect the
`
`college provided health insurance; if same is covered by any grants or scholarships the
`
`child may receive, the Father shall not be obligated to pay for same. The parties will divide
`
`equally the reasonable uninsured and unreimbursed expenses for the children until each of
`
`the children reaches the age of 21 years.
`
`2
`
`

`

`7. There shall be no further child support paid by the Father for either child.
`
`8. There shall be no contribution to the college expenses by the Father for either child. The
`
`parties will stipulate that there shall be no further continuing jurisdiction for post-majority
`
`support.
`
`9. The Mother shall continue to take both minor children on her tax returns as deductions.
`
`10. The parties agree that the terms of this agreement are done for the coordination of total
`
`family support and shall request the court to deviate from the child support guidelines on
`
`that basis.
`
`11. The parties understand that this is a term sheet and they shall cooperatively draft settlement
`
`agreements in all of the above matters to effectuate this agreement.
`
`3
`
`

`

`