Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lerman v. Levine

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 10, 1988No. 5881Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBorden, J.

I concur with the majority regarding the appeal. I disagree, however, with the majority regarding the cross appeal. Therefore, I dissent and would find no error on the cross appeal.

I agree with the majority that under General Statutes § 52-404 (b) it is not necessary for a cotenant, who does not occupy the property in question, to establish ouster in order to be entitled to an accounting for a proportion of use and occupancy from her cotenant who occupies the property. An ouster is a wrongful and intentional exclusion from property of one who is entitled to its possession. Diamond v. Boynton,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Newell v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
  2. Vesce v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  3. Struzinski v. StruzinskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  4. Neumann v. NeumannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  5. Zuch v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API