Legal Opinion

Alligood v. LaSaracina

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided July 13, 2010No. AC 30407PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ALVORD, J.

The defendants, Anthony LaSaracina and Shelene LaSaracina, appeal from the judgment of the trial court ordering them to remove a porch that the court found they had constructed in violation of a restrictive covenant contained in their deed of conveyance. The defendants claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the construction of the porch violated the restrictive covenant, (2) the restrictive covenant ran with the land and was enforceable by the plaintiffs, Gary H. Alligood and Holly J. Alligood, and (3) the doctrine of laches did not operate to bar the plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wood v. AmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  2. Morgenbesser v. Aquarion Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  3. Wood v. AmerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  4. Arnold v. HofferConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  5. Alligood v. LaSaracinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bueno v. FirgeleskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
  2. Alligood v. LaSaracinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  3. Axela New Britain Group, LLC v. LHBP Realty, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
  4. Abel v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
  5. Avery v. MedinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API