*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest 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 the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
ANDREA MICEK-HOLT, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE

OF EDWARD W. MICEK) v. MARY

PAPAGEORGE ET AL.

MARY PAPAGEORGE v. ANDREA

MICEK-HOLT ET AL.

(AC 39668)

Sheldon, Elgo and Eveleigh, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff in the first case, H, the executrix of the estate of her father,

the decedent, sought to enforce a purchase and sale agreement for

certain real property that the decedent had entered into with M, a

defendant in the first case. M had agreed to purchase the property after

the expiration of a lease agreement entered into between the decedent

and K Co., which was owned by M and her husband, G. G and M

thereafter filed a separate action, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract

and seeking damages. The trial court consolidated the matters and,

following a trial to the court, rendered judgments in favor of H in both

cases. On appeal, M and G challenged the trial court’s decision on several

grounds. Held that the trial court properly rendered judgments in favor

of H in both cases, and that court having thoroughly addressed the

arguments raised in this appeal, this court adopted the trial court’s well

reasoned memorandum of decision as a statement of the facts and the

applicable law on the issues.

Argued January 16—officially released March 27, 2018

Procedural History

Action, in the first case, for, inter alia, breach of

contract, and for other relief, and action, in the second

case, for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought

to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Windham

at Putnam, where the named defendant et al. in the

first case filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the court,

Calmar, J., granted the motion to consolidate filed by

the defendants in the first case; subsequently, the matters were tried to the court, Boland, J.; thereafter, the

complaint in the second case was withdrawn in part;

subsequently, the court, Boland, J., granted the motions

to dismiss filed by the defendant Jamie Davis et al. in

the second case; judgments for the plaintiff in the first

case on the complaint and counterclaim, and for the

named defendant in the second case, from which the

named defendant et al. in the first case and the plaintiff

in the second case appealed to this court; thereafter,

the court, Boland, J., issued an articulation of its decision. Affirmed.

Mathew Olkin, for the appellants (named defendant

et al. in the first case, plaintiff in the second case).

Beth A. Steele, for the appellee (plaintiff in the first

case, named defendant in the second case).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This appeal arises from two cases,

which were consolidated for trial, involving a contract

for the purchase of certain real property located in

Thompson. Mary Papageorge and George Papageorge

appeal from the judgments of the trial court, rendered

after a court trial, in favor of Andrea Micek-Holt, executrix of the estate of Edward W. Micek. We affirm the

judgments of the trial court.

In 2010, the plaintiff’s decedent entered into a lease

agreement with Kalami Corporation, which was owned

by the family of Mary and George Papageorge (Papageorges). Pursuant to the lease agreement, the Papageorges, along with their two children, were permitted

to rent a home owned by the plaintiff’s decedent. The

term of the lease ran from August 1, 2010 to September

1, 2011. The plaintiff’s decedent and Mary Papageorge

also executed a purchase and sale agreement, pursuant

to which Mary Papageorge agreed to purchase the home

once the term of the lease had expired. A closing was

scheduled for August 31, 2011. The closing never

occurred, yet the Papageorges continued to reside in

the subject property.

On October 28, 2014, Micek-Holt, as executrix of the

estate of Edward W. Micek, commenced one of the

two underlying actions.1 See Micek-Holt v. Papageorge,

Superior Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam,

Docket No. CV-14-6008881-S (September 26, 2016) (first

action). Micek-Holt pleaded seven claims in her complaint sounding in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, quiet title, foreclosure of

equitable title, enforcement of the purchase and sale

agreement, and eviction. On December 18, 2014, the

Papageorges, along with Angelina Papageorge, filed an

answer, special defenses and a counterclaim directed

to Micek-Holt, both individually and in her capacity as

the executrix of her decedent’s estate.

On August 25, 2015, Mary Papageorge commenced

the second of the two underlying consolidated actions.

See Papageorge v. Micek-Holt, Superior Court, judicial

district of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. CV-15-

5006173-S (September 26, 2016) (second action). Mary

Papageorge raised six counts in her complaint sounding

in breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, abuse

of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress

and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The

claims were directed to Micek-Holt in her individual

capacity, in her capacity as executrix of her decedent’s

estate, and in her capacity as a beneficiary of her decedent’s estate.2 As relief, Mary Papageorge sought $5.5

million in damages, a determination that she was the

equitable owner of the subject property, and an order

requiring Micek-Holt to convey legal title to the subject

property to her without contingencies and without a
mortgage. On March 23, 2016, Micek-Holt, in all of her

capacities, filed an answer and special defenses.

On August 1, 2016, the first action filed by MicekHolt and the second action filed by Mary Papageorge

were consolidated. Over the course of two days, the

consolidated cases were tried to the court.

On September 26, 2016, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision rendering judgments in MicekHolt’s favor on all counts in her complaint and on all

counts in the Papageorges’ counterclaim in the first

action, and in Micek-Holt’s favor on all counts in Mary

Papageorge’s complaint in the second action. By way

of relief, the court ordered the parties to meet for a

closing on October 24, 2016, at which, inter alia: (1)

Micek-Holt would convey to Mary Papageorge legal title

to the property; (2) Mary Papageorge would convey a

check to Micek-Holt in the amount of $78,336.40; and

(3) Mary Papageorge would deliver to Micek-Holt a note

secured by a mortgage. In addition, the court ordered

Mary Papageorge to pay Micek-Holt the sum of

$17,401.50, to reimburse her for taxes that Micek-Holt

had paid for her on the subject property, plus attorney’s

fees. The court further ordered that, if the closing did

not occur as ordered, then, inter alia: (1) the Papageorges would either have to vacate the property by

October 26, 2016, or be required to pay $150 in daily

use and occupancy payments and be subject to the

execution of an eviction order; (2) Mary Papageorge’s

interest in the property would be extinguished; and (3)

a judgment quieting title in favor of Micek-Holt would

enter. On September 29, 2016, the Papageorges

appealed.3

On appeal, the Papageorges challenge the trial court’s

decision on several grounds. After examination of the

record on appeal and the parties’ briefs and arguments,

we conclude that the judgments of the trial court should

be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly

addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt

its well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts

and the applicable law on the issues. See Micek-Holt

v. Papageorge, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. CV-14-6008881-S (September 26, 2016), and Papageorge v. Micek-Holt, Superior

Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam, Docket

No. CV-15-5006173-S (September 26, 2016) (reprinted

at 180 Conn. App. 545). Any further discussion by this

court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff

v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010);

Brander v. Stoddard, 173 Conn. App. 730, 732, 164 A.3d

889, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 928, 171 A.3d 456 (2017).

The judgments are affirmed.

1 Kalami Corporation and Angelina Papageorge, one of the Papageorges’

children, also were named as defendants in the action filed by Micek-Holt.

Neither of those parties is participating in this appeal.

2 Mary Papageorge’s complaint also named two attorneys, Jamie Davis

and Daniel McGinn. Davis and McGinn filed separate motions to dismiss
the counts directed to them, both of which the trial court granted. Mary

Papageorge did not appeal from those decisions. Further, the complaint

contained a seventh count sounding in ‘‘misconduct.’’ She withdrew that

claim prior to trial.

3 Extensive litigation ensued regarding the termination of the appellate

stay and various efforts to have the Papageorges ejected from the subject

property. This court already considered whether the trial court improperly

granted the plaintiff’s motion to terminate the stay when it considered the

Papageorges’ motion for review under Practice Book § 61-14. We granted

the Papageorges’ request for review, but denied the relief they requested.

We thereafter denied their motion for reconsideration. See Lawrence v.

Cords, 165 Conn. App. 473, 479, 139 A.3d 778 (‘‘[I]ssues regarding a stay of

execution cannot be raised on direct appeal. The sole remedy of any party

desiring . . . [review of] . . . an order concerning a stay of execution shall

be by motion for review . . . .’’ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert.

denied, 322 Conn. 907, 140 A.3d 221 (2016). Moreover, although the Papageorges have challenged several executions of ejectment served by MicekHolt, they did not brief any claimed errors with respect to those challenges,

and we thus deem them abandoned. See Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Creed, 145 Conn. App. 38, 44 n.7, 75 A.3d 38, cert. denied, 310

Conn. 936, 79 A.3d 889 (2013).