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

2,623 chars

plaintiff assured and represented to [him] that he can
         stay in possession and occupancy of the premises and
         operate his business, acknowledging that was his
         father’s intent; reaffirming or ratifying the life tenancy
         or estate granted to [him] by his father.’’ The defendant
         alleged that ‘‘[i]t would be against equity and good con-
         science to deprive [him] of the enforcement of said
         agreement with his father . . . .’’
            These three underlying cases, and two other related
         cases, brought under Docket Nos. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S and
         CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, were tried together before the court,
         Spader, J., in 2022.5 On November 17, 2022, the court
         issued a memorandum of decision, stating: ‘‘The . . .
         cases are all essentially claims that any right or privilege
         the defendants had to occupy the respective premises
         has terminated. . . .
            ‘‘The defendants provide similar defenses in all mat-
         ters alleging that the plaintiff has not properly per-
         formed under an alleged life estate the defendants main-
         tain in the premises, that the notices to quit are defective
         because the defendants have life estates and that these
         evictions are inequitable/unconscionable. The defen-
         dants claim by way of counterclaim that they should
         receive an injunction against forfeiture because of
         repairs they performed and/or work performed at sub-
         standard wages to the benefit of the Freccia family. . . .
           ‘‘As an initial matter, before considering the special
         defenses or counterclaims, the court has to consider
           5
             The record reflects that the trial court dismissed the summary process
         action brought under Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, and no appeal was taken
         from that dismissal. See Freccia v. Freccia, Superior Court, judicial district
         of Stamford-Norwalk, Housing Session, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S. The
         record further reflects that the trial court rendered judgment in favor of
         the plaintiff in the summary process action brought under Docket No. CV-21-
         6006597-S. See Freccia v. Doe, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-
         Norwalk, Housing Session, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S. Although the defen-
         dants in that action filed an appeal from the judgment, this court dismissed
         the appeal on April 4, 2024.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 9

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text