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

2,408 chars

the time of his death. The decedent appointed the plain-
       tiff as the executor of his will. The estate had not been
       closed by the time of the trial. By the terms of his will,
       his ownership interest in the subject property ultimately
       is to pass to the Frank J. Freccia, Jr., Revocable Trust
       (trust). The plaintiff is one of the trustees of the trust.
          The defendants acknowledge that, as executor, the
       plaintiff ‘‘has . . . the authority to take the assets of
       the estate into her possession and administer them to
       the point of distribution.’’ The defendants also acknowl-
       edge that, under the terms of the trust, the trustees
       have authority to dispose of trust assets. The defendants
       argue that, by commencing the present summary pro-
       cess action, however, the plaintiff is imperfectly per-
       forming her obligations under both the will and the
       trust of the decedent, thereby violating her obligation
       to ‘‘preserve and maintain the assets for the beneficiar-
       ies [of those instruments],’’ including the defendant
       Guin. Essentially, the defendants argue that the plain-
       tiff, by commencing the summary process action, vio-
       lated her fiduciary duties as a representative of the
       estate in that the action served her self-interests and
       was not acting in the best interests of the estate.
          The plaintiff alleged in her revised complaint that the
       defendants originally had a right or privilege to occupy
       the subject property but that such right or privilege had
       been terminated by service of a notice to quit on July
       23, 2021. ‘‘In a summary process action based on the
       plaintiff’s claim that the defendant originally had the
       right or privilege to occupy the premises but that any
       such right or privilege has terminated, the plaintiff must
       prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all the
       elements of the case. The essential elements are: (1) the
       plaintiff is the owner of the property; (2) the defendant
       originally had a right or privilege to occupy the premises
       but such right or privilege has terminated; (3) the plain-
       tiff caused a proper notice to quit possession to be
Page 14                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text