O'Connor v. Larocque: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*Based on the said assumption, the widow conveyed the entire lot to her daughter & son-in-law (the daughter's husband) "O'Connor" in 1980 | *Based on the said assumption, the widow conveyed the entire lot to her daughter & son-in-law (the daughter's husband) "O'Connor" in 1980 | ||
*Later in 1987, the daughter O'Connor realized that her mother had only a 1/3 interest (2/6) in the lot | *Later in 1987, the daughter O'Connor realized that her mother had only a 1/3 interest (2/6) in the lot | ||
*Larocque = a sister of O'Connor | *'''Larocque = a sister of O'Connor''' | ||
*O'Connor wanted to convince Larocque to hand over her share of the land to O'Connor | *O'Connor wanted to convince Larocque to hand over her share of the land to O'Connor | ||
*Another sister & the surviving spouse of another conveyed their interests to O'Connor; in other words, 2 | *Another sister & the surviving spouse of another conveyed their interests to O'Connor; in other words, 2 siblings handed over 2 * (1/6) interests to O'Connor | ||
*However, Larocque refused to hand over her interest to her sister O'Connor & husband | |||
*Consequently, O'Connor had a 5/6 interest in the lot while Larocque had a 1/6 interest in the lot | |||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
* | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=*O'Connor sued Larocque in state superior court to quiet title. | |||
*Larocque counter-claimed against adverse possession by means of a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/tenancy-in-common tenancy in common] | |||
*O'Connor won in the bench trial | |||
* | |||
* | |||
|issues=Must a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/cotenancy co-tenant] in a tenancy in common prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by adverse possession? | |||
|arguments=O'Connor contended that she had acquire Larocque's interest by adverse possession. | |||
|holding=In a tenancy in common, a co-tenant must prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by land. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|reasons=Judge Zarella: There's a strong presumption against adverse possession of a tenancy in common. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque | ||
Latest revision as of 19:33, April 16, 2024
| O'Connor v. Larocque | |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 302 Conn. 562, 31 A.3d 1 |
| Date decided | November 1, 2011 |
Facts
- In 1971, Mr. Perkowski died intestate.
- At the time, Perkowski owned a vacant lot in Connecticut.
- A 1/3 interest in the lot went to Perkowski's widow while a 1/6 interest went to each of the 4 children
- However, the widow mistakenly believed that she had inherited everything (i.e., the whole lot)
- Based on the said assumption, the widow conveyed the entire lot to her daughter & son-in-law (the daughter's husband) "O'Connor" in 1980
- Later in 1987, the daughter O'Connor realized that her mother had only a 1/3 interest (2/6) in the lot
- Larocque = a sister of O'Connor
- O'Connor wanted to convince Larocque to hand over her share of the land to O'Connor
- Another sister & the surviving spouse of another conveyed their interests to O'Connor; in other words, 2 siblings handed over 2 * (1/6) interests to O'Connor
- However, Larocque refused to hand over her interest to her sister O'Connor & husband
- Consequently, O'Connor had a 5/6 interest in the lot while Larocque had a 1/6 interest in the lot
Procedural History
- O'Connor sued Larocque in state superior court to quiet title.
- Larocque counter-claimed against adverse possession by means of a tenancy in common
- O'Connor won in the bench trial
Issues
Must a co-tenant in a tenancy in common prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by adverse possession?
Arguments
O'Connor contended that she had acquire Larocque's interest by adverse possession.
Holding
In a tenancy in common, a co-tenant must prove that she ousted the other co-tenants from the land to obtain sole ownership by land.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
Judge Zarella: There's a strong presumption against adverse possession of a tenancy in common.
