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

2,241 chars

In support of this unpreserved claim, the defendant
       argues that the plaintiff’s commencement of the under-
       lying summary process action reflects an abuse of her
       authority under the will and trust of the decedent and
       that the plaintiff is acting in her own self-interest rather
       than acting as a fiduciary on behalf of the estate of
       the decedent. Having carefully examined the arguments
       raised by the defendant, we conclude that they are
       substantially the same as those raised by the defendants
       in AC 46037, which we rejected in part I A of this
       opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate
       that analysis here. Relying on our analysis in part I A of
       this opinion, we conclude that the defendant’s standing
       claim is without merit.
                                    B
          Next, the defendant in AC 46040 claims that the court
       improperly failed to conclude that he had a present
       right to remain in the subject property or that equitable
       considerations precluded the plaintiff from obtaining
       judgment in her favor. We are not persuaded.
          The defendant argues that by virtue of his beneficiary
       status under the will and trust of the decedent, he has
       a ‘‘present, vested right in the real estate subject to this
       summary process action . . . .’’ The defendant also
       argues that the will and trust executed by the decedent
       ‘‘reflect oral promises made to Frank to the effect that
       he would always be taken care of.’’ The defendant relies
       on evidence that, in his view, demonstrated that he
       worked for the family business on terms favorable to
       the business in reliance on the alleged promises made
       by his father. He argues that, ‘‘[w]hether based on the
       express promises contained in the will and trust instru-
       ments, or the many promises and assurances made by
       [the decedent] to Frank over the years . . . the evi-
       dence amply establishes that the subject premises must
       be maintained in constructive trust for Frank and [the
Page 38                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text