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

2,302 chars

complaint that Frank had entered into a written lease
       with the plaintiff for the use and occupancy of 40 Locust
       Street, Building 2 and Garage, in Greenwich. The writ-
       ten lease set forth a monthly lease payment amount
       beginning on June 1, 2019. The plaintiff alleged that
       the right to possession enjoyed by Frank terminated
       because of lapse of time and that, on August 14, 2021,
       she served him, as well as Tammie, Locksley, and D’Ar-
       tagnan, with a notice to quit, but the defendants con-
       tinue in possession. It is undisputed that Frank is the
       son of the plaintiff and the decedent; Tammie is the
       wife of Frank; and Locksley and D’Artagnan are the
       children of Frank. In count two, the plaintiff alleged
       that the defendants originally had a right or privilege
       to occupy the subject premises but that such right or
       privilege had been terminated by service of the notice
       to quit on August 14, 2021.
          By way of special defenses, the defendants alleged,
       first, that ‘‘[i]t would be unconscionable and inequitable
       to enforce forfeiture under the circumstances.’’ Second,
       the defendants alleged that the plaintiff had failed to
       satisfactorily perform an agreement between her and
       the defendants by virtue of which they were granted a
       life estate in the subject premises by the decedent.
       Third, the defendants alleged that the notice to quit
       was a nullity in light of their life estate in the subject
       premises. By way of counterclaim, the defendants
       alleged that the decedent and Frank had entered into
       an agreement whereby the defendants were granted a
       life estate in the subject premises ‘‘in consideration of
       [Frank] performing renovations to the premises, and
       paying for certain expenses relating to the premises,
       and [Frank] accepting below market compensation for
       work performed at the family automobile business,
       known as Freccia Brothers Auto Sales, and for contin-
       ued work and operation of the family business.’’ The
       defendants alleged that they relied on the agreement
Page 6                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text