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

2,500 chars

decedent’s] other descendants . . . . [The plaintiff’s]
          attempt to dispossess the family from the family busi-
          ness and liquidate the assets contravenes both [the
          decedent’s] express written intent as well as his conduct
          over the course of decades.’’ Moreover, the defendant
          argues that, in light of promises made to him by the
          decedent, and his reliance on those promises to his
          detriment, the doctrine of estoppel prohibits the plain-
          tiff from obtaining possession of the subject premises.
             The arguments raised by the defendant in this appeal
          are similar to those raised by the defendants 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.
          Despite the factual differences involving the underlying
          action, the operative factual findings on which we relied
          in part I B of this opinion compel the conclusion that
          the defendant is unable to demonstrate that he had a
          present right to occupy the property forever by virtue
          of his beneficiary status under the will or the trust, both
          of which authorized the plaintiff to dispossess him from
          the property and dispose of it as she saw fit. Moreover,
          the defendant is unable to demonstrate that the equita-
          ble doctrines on which he relies apply in this case. As
          we stated previously in this opinion, the court did not
          find credible the testimony at trial that the decedent
          made promises to the effect that the defendant could
          remain in the subject premises beyond his death and
          that the defendant had relied on such representations
          to his detriment, characterizing these claimed represen-
          tations as ‘‘convenient memories’’ that were unequivo-
          cally contradicted by the decedent’s written estate
          plans. The court specifically found that the defendant,
          did not believe that he 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 cer-
          tainly could not have extended beyond the life of the
          decedent.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 39

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text