Legal Opinion
Wieselman v. Hoeniger
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 4, 2007No. AC 28014PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HARPER, J.
In this fraudulent conveyance action, the plaintiff, Pearl Wieselman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Felicia S. Hoeniger. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that no fraudulent conveyance occurred because the court improperly (1) allocated the burden of proof and (2) applied General Statutes § 52-5526 1 by requiring that the transferee share in the transferor’s fraudulent intent. We disagree with the arguments advanced by the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Giulietti v. GiuliettiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. HowellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Bizzoco v. ChinitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Boccanfuso v. ConnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Murphy v. WakeleeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Stuart v. StuartConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Kosiorek v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- DEROY v. Estate of BaronConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- State v. PetawayConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Barber v. Skip Barber Racing School, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.