circumstances would be unconscionable and inequitable.
Second, they claimed that the plaintiff had failed to
perform adequately under an agreement pursuant to
which the decedent had granted them a life estate in the
property. Third, they asserted that, in light of that life
estate, the notice to quit was a nullity. In their coun-
terclaim, the defendants alleged that the decedent and
Frank had entered into an agreement under which the
defendants were granted a life estate in the property in
exchange for Frank’s performance of renovations to the
premises, continued operation of the family automobile
business, Freccia Brothers Auto Sales, payment of cer-
tain related expenses, and acceptance of below market
compensation for work performed at the business. The
defendants further alleged that they relied on this agree-
ment, have resided at the property for decades, and that
Frank fully performed his obligations thereunder. They
claimed that the plaintiff breached the agreement by
commencing this summary process action and that it
would be against equity and good conscience to deprive
them of the benefit of the agreement and the asserted
life estate. The defendants did not amend their answer,
special defenses, or counterclaim after the plaintiff’s
motion to substitute was granted.
A bench trial was held over multiple dates in 2022.5 On
November 17, 2022, the trial court issued a memorandum
of decision, finding in favor of the plaintiff and rejecting
the defendants’ special defenses and counterclaim. It
accordingly rendered judgment of possession in favor of
the plaintiff but stayed execution until March 31, 2023.
The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court. Frec-
cia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353, 354–55, 336 A.3d
490 (2025). They claimed for the first time on appeal that
the notice to quit served on them was invalid, and, as a
result, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
5
The case was tried together with four related cases involving proper-
ties owned by the decedent’s estate. See Freccia v. Freccia, Superior
Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Housing Session, Docket
Nos. NWH CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, NWH-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, NWH-CV-
6006600-S, NWH-CV-6006602-S and NWH-CV-6006603-S.
Freccia v. Freccia