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

1,806 chars

Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that the
       defendant’s conduct, in signing a lease for the subject
       premises in 2019, undermined the credibility of his testi-
       mony that he believed he had a right to occupy the
       subject premises pursuant to promises made by the
       decedent. The court stated that, ‘‘if the defendant . . .
       truly believed he had a right to stay at the property
       forever without payment, why would he execute the
       2019 lease? It was not because of duress, but because
       he knew he had no continual ongoing right and his
       arguments that he has a forever right to possession
       without compensation are just a convenient legal theory
       now that the plaintiff is seeking possession.’’ The defen-
       dant has failed to demonstrate that the court’s factual
       determinations were clearly erroneous and, thus, he
       has failed to demonstrate that the court erred in
       rejecting his equitable defenses.
                                    C
         Finally, the defendant in AC 46040 argues that the
       court abused its discretion and prejudiced him by con-
       solidating for trial the action underlying this appeal
       with four other related summary process actions. For
       the reasons previously stated in part I C of this opinion,
       we decline to reach the merits of this unpreserved claim
       of error.
          The present claim and the arguments made by the
       defendant in support thereof, are identical to the claim
       and arguments addressed in part I C of this opinion. It
       would serve no useful purpose to reiterate our discus-
       sion of that claim again here.
         The judgments are affirmed.
         In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text