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

2,592 chars

occurred here. Accordingly, we conclude that the plain-
tiff properly invoked the court’s subject matter jurisdic-
tion.
B
Next, the defendants in AC 46038 claim that the court
improperly failed to conclude that equitable considera-
tions precluded the plaintiff from obtaining judgment
in her favor. We are not persuaded.
The defendants argue, first, that ‘‘an equitable or con-
structive trust has arisen in favor of Frank and Tammie
. . . regarding their home by virtue of promises and
assurances made by [the decedent] and the plaintiff.’’
The defendants argue: ‘‘[The decedent] made promises
and assurances to Frank that he would always be taken
care of. Did Frank and Tammie not order their lives in
reliance on these assurances? Frank and Tammie clearly
believed, based on the promises made by Frank’s par-
ents and elders that he would live in his home at 40
Locust Street, for life, always, following the traditions
of his father, grandfather, and great grandfather before
him. . . . Frank went to college, but only for a short
time; instead, he worked as a mechanic for the genera-
tional family auto business . . . from which he earned
wages well below market rates for decades . . . . He
works there, continuing the family business, to this day.
‘‘Frank and Tammie expended time and exerted phys-
ical labor to perform major renovations to the home,
as proved in testimony and photographs . . . . Frank
possession rendered in a summary process action, claiming that the plaintiff
lacked standing to pursue the action because it was not the legal owner of
the subject premises. Id., 154–55. This court reversed the judgment of the
trial court after concluding that the court’s finding that the plaintiff suffi-
ciently proved its legal ownership of the subject premises was clearly errone-
ous. Id., 179. Success, Inc., however, unlike the present case, did not involve
a situation in which a notice to quit accurately set forth the attorney-at-law
for the undisputed owner of the subject premises. Thus, Success, Inc., does
not alter our conclusion that the defendants’ claim is not persuasive.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 35

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text