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

2,238 chars

find credible the testimony at trial that the decedent
          had made promises to the effect that the defendants
          could remain in the subject premises beyond his death
          and that the defendants had relied on such representa-
          tions to their detriment. The court characterized the
          representations allegedly made by the decedent as ‘‘con-
          venient memories’’ that were unequivocally contra-
          dicted by the decedent’s written estate plans. The court
          specifically found that the defendants did not believe
          that they had the right to remain in the subject premises
          ‘‘forever’’ and found that, even if an implicit promise
          to that extent had been made, it certainly could not
          have extended beyond the decedent’s life. The defen-
          dants have failed to demonstrate that these critical fac-
          tual determinations were clearly erroneous, and, thus,
          they have failed to demonstrate that the court erred in
          rejecting their equitable defenses.
                                      C
             Finally, the defendants in AC 46038 claim that the
          court abused its discretion and prejudiced them by con-
          solidating for trial the action underlying this appeal
          with four other related summary process actions. We
          decline to reach the merits of this unpreserved claim
          of error.
             The present claim and the arguments made by the
          defendants in support thereof, are identical to the claim
          and arguments that we addressed in part I C of this
          opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate
          our discussion of that claim again here. Relying on our
          analysis in part I C, we decline to reach the merits of
          this unpreserved claim.
                                      III
                                   AC 46040
                                      A
             First, the defendant in AC 46040 claims that the plain-
          tiff lacked standing to commence the action. We are
          not persuaded.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 37

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text