· 5/10/2022

Cavanagh v. Richichi

Citations

  • 212 Conn. App. 402

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought a partition by sale, pursuant to statute (§ 52-500 (a)) of certain real property in which he and the defendants each held an ownership interest. Between the years 2001 and 2019, the defendants B, G, and N Co. invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for the upkeep, maintenance, and improvement of the waterfront property to support a marine based business and also paid all of the real estate taxes on the property. The trial court found that the plaintiff and the defendants M and P had been passive owners and had minimal interests in the property as compared to B, G, and N Co. and determined that the equitable distribution of the minimal interests of the plaintiff and M and P to B, G, and N Co. in exchange for just compensation would better promote the relative interests of the parties. Thereafter, the court accepted an appraisal of the fair market value of the property and awarded the plaintiff one third of that amount, reduced by a credit to B, G, and N Co. for certain investments in the property and a set off for the real estate taxes paid. The court declined to award the plaintiff compensation for B, G, and N Co.'s use and occupancy of the property. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating its award of just compensation to the plaintiff: contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the court was not prohibited from crediting B, G, and N Co. for the costs of improvements to the property in the absence of an agreement with the plaintiff to share the cost of those improvements as there was no marital relationship among the parties; moreover, the plaintiff provided no authority for his assertion that the court was required to calculate the amount of credit to B, G, and N Co. on the basis of the amount of their expenditures for improvements rather than the extent to which those expenditures enhanced the fair market value of the property; furthermore, the court reasonably considered in i

Judges: Bright; Clark; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.