Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Citation
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Parent Document
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2026-05-26
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
- Freccia v. Freccia (2026)
Full Text
445 chars8
The defendants argue that the Appellate Court erred in concluding
that the defect in the notice to quit was cured by Sank’s dual representa-
tion of the executor/estate and the plaintiff in her personal capacity,
on the ground that no evidence in the record established such dual rep-
resentation at the time the notice was served. Because our conclusion
does not rest on the Appellate Court’s reasoning, we need not address
this argument.