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

2,528 chars

identity of the owner’s legal representative, attorney-
at-law or attorney-in-fact.
‘‘Furthermore, if, in contemplating the content of the
notice to quit, the legislature considered the identity of
the owner to be necessary, it could have included such
requirement in the list of information under § 47a-23
(b) where it provides that ‘notice shall be in writing
substantially in the following form . . . .’ It is well set-
tled that ‘[w]e are not permitted to supply statutory
language that the legislature may have chosen to omit.’ ’’
(Emphasis omitted; footnote omitted.) Id., 809–10.
In the present case, it is not disputed that in these
related summary process actions, Sank represented the
plaintiff, both in her individual capacity and in her repre-
sentative capacity in connection with the estate of the
decedent. Although the notice to quit in the underlying
action identified the party who brought the notice to
quit as ‘‘Theresa K. Freccia, Executor,’’ the notice was
signed by Sank as ‘‘[h]er [a]ttorney.’’ The notice did not
expressly identify the owner of the subject premises,
let alone state that the estate was the owner. The notice,
however, identified Sank, the attorney-at-law for the
owner, the plaintiff. The fact that the notice stated that
it was being brought by the plaintiff as ‘‘[e]xecutor’’ did
not detract from the fact that it identified Sank who
was the plaintiff’s attorney. Because it cannot be dis-
puted that the notice to quit accurately identified the
owner’s attorney-at-law, we do not conclude that it
failed to comply with § 47a-23, despite the fact that it
did not also accurately identify the owner. As U.S. Bank
National Assn. instructs, it is unnecessary for the
owner to be identified as long as the owner’s attorney-
at-law, attorney-in-fact, or legal representative is identi-
fied in the written notice to quit; U.S. Bank National
Assn. v. Karl, supra, 128 Conn. App. 809–10;15 as
15
The defendants in AC 46038 argue that the present claim is governed
by this court’s decision in Success, Inc. v. Curcio, supra, 160 Conn. App.
153. The defendants in Success, Inc., appealed from a judgment of immediate
Page 34 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text