Editing O'Connor v. Larocque

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Connecticut Supreme Court
|citation=302 Conn. 562, 31 A.3d 1
|date=November 1, 2011
|subject=Property
|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
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/2011/sc18648.html
|case_text_source=Justia
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://casetext.com/case/oconnor-v-larocque-2
|case_text_source=CaseText
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=fFlUG-0khjY
}}
}}
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *
 *
-|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
 |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-larocque