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

2,363 chars

by which he had a life tenancy in the subject premises.
       Second, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s notice
       to quit was a nullity in light of the defendant’s life
       tenancy in the subject premises. Third, the defendant
       alleged that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff had made assurances and
       representations to the defendant that he may remain
       in possession of the premises and operate his business.’’
       The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff had ‘‘engaged
       in unconscionable and inequitable conduct towards the
       defendant.’’ The defendant alleged that ‘‘[a]ny eviction
       would cause the defendant to suffer a loss wholly dis-
       proportionate to any injury claimed by the plaintiff;
       such injury of the plaintiff, if any, would be reparable.’’
       The defendant alleged that any breach on his part ‘‘was
       neither wilful nor grossly negligent’’ and that ‘‘[i]t would
       be unconscionable and inequitable to enforce forfeiture
       under the circumstances.’’
          By way of counterclaim, the defendant alleged in a
       first count that he and the decedent had entered into
       an agreement whereby the defendant received a life
       tenancy in the subject property in exchange for his
       ‘‘receiving below market compensation for work per-
       formed at the . . . family automotive sales business,
       Freccia Brothers Auto Sales, and for continued work
       and operation of the family business.’’ The defendant
       alleged that the family business, which specializes in
       the repair, restoration and sale of vintage Volkswagen
       motor vehicles, has operated at the subject premises
       since 1922. The defendant alleged that the family busi-
       ness has been ‘‘his life’s work’’ and that he continues
       business operations at the subject premises in fulfill-
       ment of the agreement made with his father, the dece-
       dent. In a second count of his counterclaim, the defen-
       dant alleged that any written lease that he entered into
       with the plaintiff was void in light of the life tenancy,
       which he enjoys as part of the agreement he reached
       with the decedent. The defendant also alleged that ‘‘the
Page 8                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text