Krupien v. Krupien

Connecticut Superior Court

Krupien v. Krupien

10 Conn. Super. Ct. 454

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 11, 1942

DocketFile No. 58560

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Conn. Super. Ct. 454 (Krupien v. Krupien) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krupien v. Krupien, 10 Conn. Super. Ct. 454 (Colo. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action for partition of land and an accounting. The case was referred by this court to a state referee who has heard the parties and has filed his report in court.

The state referee finds in part that a sale of the property would not better promote the interests of the parties and that an actual division of the property between the parties would be consistent with their best interests and recommends that the partition be by such division.

To this report of the state referee the defendant remonstrates, because the property is subject to a mortgage.

The remonstrant submits no facts and no law justifying the court in not following the recommendation of the state referee. Kelley vs. Madden, 40 Conn. 274; Ford vs. Kirk, 41 id. 9.

The remonstrance is overruled.

Judgment is rendered that: (1) the property be partitioned in accordance with the recommendation of the state referee; (2) the plaintiffs shall recover from the defendant damages of $15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI