In 1992, the elderly parents created a Trust. Controversy arose when the
petitioner had a child which extended the life of the trust to the year 2036. In 2011, the
84-year old mother was committed to an Alzheimer 's and Dementia home. The father
died on 06/09/2012. On 08/30/2012, the siblings of petitioner had their mother sign a
Codicil to her Will and a revocation of the Trust. The mother died on 05/08/2016. The
petitioner challenged the codicil and revocation of Trust in the Conn. Superior Court.
On 06/17/2016, Conn. Superior Court Judge Cynthia Swienton arbitrated a "Court
Settlement Agreement " declared as ". an agreement of the parties enforceable by the
Court ". Later on 08/19/2016, in written memorandum, Judge Swienton ruled: "The court
does, however, find that there was a clear and unambiguous settlement reached
between the plaintiff and his four siblings. "
Thereafter the petitioner filed complaint seeking specific performance of the
06/17/2016 agreement. Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma dismissed the complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed without
issuing a memorandum of decision. The petitioner moved for the Appellate Court to
specially set forth such facts on which it found its final judgment and decree to appear on
the record as required by CT Gen Stat § 52-231 (2018). The Appellate Court dismissed
the Motion for Articulation and denied the petitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration En
Banc again without the required written memorandum. The Connecticut Supreme Court
denied certification. The questions presented are:

1. Did Superior Court Judge Aurigemma err in not finding subject matter
jurisdiction to enforce a Court Settlement Agreement which was declared a
clear and unambiguous agreement enforceable by the court?

2. Did the Superior Court Judge Aurigemma violate the petitioner 's due process
rights by dismissing his legal action by allowing a "talking " motion to dismiss,
by considering allegations of facts outside the complaint and by failing to
decide jurisdiction of the court by the complaint alone?

3. Did Superior Court, the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut
Supreme Court violate its own case law by refusing to enforce a Court
Settlement Agreement after it was determined in a prior court ruling "that
there was a clear and unambiguous settlement reached between the plaintiff
and his four siblings.

4. Did Superior Court, the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut
Supreme Court violate the principal of res judicata by refusing to enforce a
Court Settlement Agreement despite a prior court ruling "that there was a
clear and unambiguous settlement reached between the plaintiff and his four
siblings " when no party took an appeal of this prior court ruling?

5. Did the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Court violate the petitioner 's due
process rights by failing to resolve two apparently opposing judicial opinions in
the Connecticut Superior Court as to the validity of the settlement?

6. Did the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Court violate the petitioner 's
statutory rights by not setting forth such facts on the record on which it found
its final judgements and decrees pursuant to CT Gen Stat § 52-231 (2018)?

7. Did the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Court violated the petitioner 's due
process rights by not setting

Did Superior Court Judge Aurigemma err in not finding subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a Court Settlement Agreement