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

2,449 chars

‘‘On appeal, the function of this court is limited solely
to the determination of whether the factual findings of
the trial court are clearly erroneous or whether the
decision is otherwise erroneous in law. . . . Determin-
ing whether a trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous
involves a two part function: where the legal conclu-
sions of the court are challenged, we must determine
whether they are legally and logically correct and
whether they find support in the facts set out in the
memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of
the court’s decision is challenged we must determine
whether the facts set out in the memorandum of deci-
sion are supported by the evidence or whether, in light
of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record,
these facts are clearly erroneous.’’ (Citation omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) Haynes Construc-
tion Co. v. Cascella & Son Construction, Inc., 36 Conn.
App. 29, 32, 647 A.2d 1015, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 916,
648 A.2d 152 (1994). ‘‘The determination of whether
an equitable doctrine applies in a particular case is a
question of law subject to plenary review.’’ Walpole
Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning, 307 Conn. 582, 588, 57
A.3d 730 (2012).
The defendants set forth three interrelated argu-
ments. First, they argue that Guin has ‘‘at least equitable
title in the subject property as beneficiary under the
will and trust [of the decedent]. [She] also owns at
least an equitable right to occupy the [subject] premises
throughout the duration of the trust term pursuant to
article V of the trust.’’ The defendants further argue
that, pursuant to the trust, the plaintiff ‘‘has no power
to dispossess [Guin] from the subject real estate.’’ In
rejecting these arguments, the court found that the evi-
dence did not support a finding that the decedent
intended to create in any of the defendants a right to
occupy any of the premises passed from his will to his
trust. The court emphasized that none of the testimonial
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text