Gould v. Rosenfeld

Decision Date24 July 1979
Citation178 Conn. 503,423 A.2d 146
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesThelma F. GOULD v. Robert ROSENFELD et al.

Lawrence P. Weisman, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).

Bernard Green, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Eric M. Gross, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PETERS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants have appealed from a decision of the Superior Court ordering the sale, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-500, of property owned by the plaintiff and defendants as tenants in common. 1

In 1965, the plaintiff, Thelma F. Gould, and one of the defendants, Robert Rosenfeld, took title by warranty deed to a parcel of land comprising 15.4 acres with a 1400 foot frontage in Trumbull, Connecticut. By quitclaim deed, Robert Rosenfeld conveyed an undivided one-fourth interest in his half of the parcel to each of the defendants, Roger L. Rosenfeld and Marc S. Rosenfeld. In September 1972, the plaintiff and Robert Rosenfeld entered into a written agreement to construct a shopping center on the premises. The Hawley Lane Shopping Center was leased to approximately fifteen commercial tenants including two large retail outlets.

In 1975, the plaintiff filed a complaint for partition of the property by sale with a division of the proceeds to the parties according to their interests. The trial court, upon finding that the premises did not lend themselves to an equitable, practical, physical division and that sale and division of the proceeds would better promote the interests of the owners, ordered that the property be sold at auction by a committee and that the proceeds be paid into the court for distribution to the parties.

The trial court found that the plaintiff and defendants are owners of the subject premises as tenants in common. Although the defendants concede that the land is owned by the parties as tenants in common and is therefore subject to partition by sale under § 52-500, they contend that the building is owned by a partnership formed by the plaintiff and the defendant Robert Rosenfeld, that the business is conducted by the partnership, and, therefore, that the building and business may not be partitioned by sale under § 52-500.

The trial court did not distinguish the form of ownership of the land from that of the building; in its findings the court stated that the plaintiff and defendants were tenants in common of both the land and the building. Nor did the defendants attack this finding in their assignment of errors. This court is not bound to consider any claimed errors on appeal which have not been specifically assigned. Practice Book, 1978, § 3063; Raffile v. Stamford Housewrecking, Inc., 168 Conn. 299, 303, 362 A.2d 879 (1975). Although the defendants urge this court to rule that there is error in the trial court's finding based on the plaintiff's testimony regarding the existence of a partnership, this court cannot correct a finding by adding facts which are neither...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1987
    ...181 Conn. 85, 86-87 n. 2, 434 A.2d 348 (1980); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155, 158, 425 A.2d 939 (1979); Gould v. Rosenfeld, 178 Conn. 503, 505, 423 A.2d 146 (1979); see Practice Book § 4185 (formerly § 3063). It is elemental that the plaintiff cannot complain indirectly of rulings that ......
  • Morin v. Lemieux
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1980
    ...relating to omitted draft findings, not having been briefed, are deemed abandoned. Practice Book, 1978, § 3063; Gould v. Rosenfeld, 178 Conn. 503, 505, 423 A.2d 146 (1979); O'Connor v. Dory Corporation, 174 Conn. 65, 70, 381 A.2d 559 (1977).2 "(General Statutes) Sec. 31-284. Basic rights an......
  • State v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1979
    ...consider any claims of error unless they are assigned specifically and distinctly. Practice Book, 1978, § 3063; Gould v. Rosenfeld, 178 Conn. 503, 505, 423 A.2d 146 (1979); American Brass Co. v. Ansonia Brass Workers' Union, 140 Conn. 457, 463, 101 A.2d 291 (1953); Putterman v. Miller, 133 ......
  • Ziperstein v. Tax Com'r
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1979
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT