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

2,749 chars

defendants have not prevailed by a fair preponderance
of the evidence on their counterclaims. There simply
is no credible support for their life estate theories.’’
These appeals followed.
I
AC 46037
A
First, the defendants in AC 46037 claim that the plain-
tiff lacked standing to commence the underlying sum-
mary process action.6 We are not persuaded.
The fact that this standing claim is being raised for
the first time on appeal is of no consequence to our
analysis ‘‘because standing implicates the court’s sub-
ject matter jurisdiction, the issue of standing is not
subject to waiver and [the issue of standing] may be
raised at any time.’’ Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310
Conn. 119, 126, 74 A.3d 1225 (2013). It is undisputed
that the plaintiff, in her individual capacity, owns 50
percent of the subject property. The remaining 50 per-
cent was owned by her husband, the decedent, until
6
In their appellate reply brief, the defendants in AC 46037 raise a distinctly
different legal claim, one that was raised in connection with AC 46038 and
does not apply to the facts of the underlying case. Specifically, they claim
that the notice to quit served on them was invalid because it listed the
plaintiff, in her capacity as executor, therein as owner. According to the
defendants, the plaintiff was not the owner of the subject property in her
representative capacity, but in her individual capacity. ‘‘It is axiomatic that
a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal in its reply brief.
. . . Our practice requires an appellant to raise claims of error in his original
brief, so that the issue as framed by him can be fully responded to by the
appellee in its brief, and so that we can have the full benefit of that written
argument. Although the function of the appellant’s reply brief is to respond
to the arguments and authority presented in the appellee’s brief, that function
does not include raising an entirely new claim of error.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Asnat Realty, LLC v. United Illuminating Co., 204 Conn.
App. 313, 329, 253 A.3d 56, cert. denied, 337 Conn. 906, 252 A.3d 366 (2021).
We therefore decline to review this claim.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text