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

2,160 chars

does not find the existence of any such lifetime prom-
          ises. . . .
             ‘‘The evidence presented to the court did not indicate
          that [the decedent] conveyed, or intended to convey,
          the ownership of any of the parcels in question in this
          matter to his children/grandchildren in occupancy
          thereof. He did not leave any instructions to the plaintiff
          to allow possession ‘forever’ to any defendants herein.
          There is no unjust enrichment to the plaintiff individu-
          ally, or to the estate for the plaintiff to pursue these
          actions.
             ‘‘The defendants all commonly testified to their belief
          that these premises would be their ‘lifetime/forever
          homes’ in convenient memories after [the decedent’s]
          passing. His will/the actual written trusts unequivocally
          conveyed these properties to the plaintiff (either indi-
          vidually or in trust) without a reservation for the defen-
          dants. Even had there been a promise, even implicitly,
          to benefit the defendants, it could not extend beyond
          [the decedent’s] life.
            ‘‘The defendants did some repairs—to upkeep the
          premises they were occupying. The court does not
          believe that they thought they could just live there for-
          ever with their mother/mother-in-law/grandmother
          footing all of the taxes/insurance, etc.
             ‘‘Specifically, as to . . . D’Andrea, the testimony of
          his fiancée as to his acceptance of substandard pay
          from the garage thinking he was being compensated
          with a home lacks credibility. If he wasn’t happy with
          his pay, or he thought [the decedent] was violating labor
          laws (and now Frank is violating labor laws) he had
          recourse therein by filing a lawsuit . . . or a Depart-
          ment of Labor claim, not by living in a property owned
          by [the plaintiff] for life—whoever’s life we are refer-
          ring to.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text