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 |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*A 1/3 interest in the lot went to Perkowski's widow while a 1/6 interest went to each of the 4 children | *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) | *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" | *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 | |||
* | |||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
Revision as of 18:56, 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
