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

2,373 chars

raised his family in the house his parents gave him,
       promised him by his father and mother to be his for
       life. Not once was there ever an effort to evict Frank
       or move him from his home at 40 Locust Street, before
       [the decedent] died in January of 2018. Frank would ask
       his father about life insurance and financial questions,
       getting retirement accounts, and [the decedent] told
       [him], ‘no, you’ll always have the land.’ ’’ (Citations omit-
       ted.) The defendants also rely on what they believe to
       have been statements made by the plaintiff ‘‘encourag-
       ing them’’ to move into the residence at 40 Locust Street.
       The defendants argue that Tammie’s testimony demon-
       strates that the decedent, Frank, and Tammie ‘‘agreed’’
       that Frank would ‘‘dedicate his life to working at the
       garage’’ and that his family could live at 40 Locust Street
       ‘‘ ‘forever.’ ’’ (Emphasis omitted.)
         Second, relying on the same alleged facts, the defen-
       dants argue that the doctrine of promissory estoppel
       applied in the present case because the evidence dem-
       onstrated that the decedent had fabricated a ‘‘global
       plan’’ on which they relied. In other words, the defen-
       dants argue that the decedent led them to believe that
       they would enjoy rights over the subject property, the
       defendants relied on those representations, and the
       plaintiff now seeks to bar them from enjoying what had
       been promised to them.
         The arguments raised by the defendants in this appeal
       are similar to arguments that were raised by the defen-
       dants in AC 46037 and addressed in part I B of this
       opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate
       the legal principles set forth therein, which likewise
       govern this claim. Moreover, although the defendants
       in the present appeal rely on evidence distinct to the
       underlying action brought against them, the operative
       factual findings on which we relied in part I B of this
       opinion compel the conclusion that the defendants are
       unable to demonstrate that the equitable doctrines on
       which they rely apply in this case. The court did not
Page 36                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text