Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)

Citation: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Parent Document: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10513133/freccia-v-freccia/ ↗

Full Text

2,375 chars

alleged that the defendants’ right or privilege to occupy
         the premises terminated by means of her service of a
         notice to quit on July 23, 2021, which provided notice
         to the defendants that they were to quit possession of
         the property by August 26, 2021. The plaintiff alleged
         that the defendants, however, remain in possession of
         the property.
            The defendants filed various special defenses. First,
         they alleged that ‘‘[i]t would be unconscionable and
         inequitable to enforce forfeiture under the circum-
         stances.’’ Second, they alleged that the plaintiff failed
         to satisfactorily perform the agreement that existed
         between them and the decedent, granting the defen-
         dants a life tenancy in the subject premises. Third, the
         defendants alleged that the notice to quit was a nullity in
         light of ‘‘the tenancy or estate’’ granted by the decedent.
            By way of counterclaim, the defendants alleged that
         the decedent had granted the defendants a life estate
         in the subject premises ‘‘in consideration of the defen-
         dants performing repairs and/or renovations to the
         premises, and paying for certain expenses relating to
         the premises, and . . . D’Andrea, accepting below
         market compensation for work performed at the auto-
         mobile business known as Freccia Brothers Auto
         Sales.’’ The defendants alleged that, in reliance thereon,
         they ‘‘entered into possession of the premises and per-
         formed repairs and/or renovations to the premises and
         have paid expenses relating to the premises. . . . D’An-
         drea . . . has been working at the business, Freccia
         Brothers Auto Sales, and has been paid below market
         compensation.’’ The defendants alleged that the plain-
         tiff has breached the agreement and ‘‘[i]t would be
         against equity and good conscience to deprive the
         defendants of the enforcement of the said agreement.’’
           In the case underlying AC 46038, the plaintiff, in her
         individual capacity,4 alleged in count one of a revised
             4
                 See footnote 3 of this opinion.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 5

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text