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

2,091 chars

whether the plaintiff has set forth her case for right
       or privilege terminated. To prevail on such claim, the
       plaintiff must establish, by a fair preponderance of the
       evidence, the following essential elements: (1) that the
       plaintiff is the lessor or owner of the various premises
       individually or as executor; (2) that the defendants origi-
       nally had the right to occupy but that right has been
       terminated; (3) the service of the proper notices to quit
       and its service date and termination date; and (4) that
       the defendants are still in possession of the various
       premises.
          ‘‘The plaintiff has established, by a fair preponder-
       ance of the evidence, her ownership individually or as
       executor of all of the subject premises; her unequivocal
       desire to regain possession through the service of legally
       compliant notices to quit with service and termination
       dates; that the dates have passed with the occupants
       still being in possession and her right to regain posses-
       sion.
          ‘‘Despite the plaintiff setting forth her cases, the court
       still needs to consider the special defenses of the defen-
       dants.
         ‘‘The common argument is inequitability—that the
       plaintiff has not performed properly her obligations to
       acknowledge a life estate in all of the defendants and/
       or invalid notices to quit because of the so-called life
       estates.
           ‘‘A life estate, as with any interest in land, can only be
       enforceable against subsequent owners/encumbrancers
       if they are properly documented in a writing and recorded
       on the land records. The defendants have not estab-
       lished the legal existence of any life estates. Even if
       there is an argument that there was a constructive trust
       or constructive life estate based upon promises from
       [the decedent] to his son and grandchildren, the court
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text