Fernandes v. Rodriguez (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MCDONALD, C. J. dissenting. I would affirm the thoughtful and well reasoned opinion of the Appellate Court. Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 54 Conn. App. 444, 735 A.2d 871 (1999). In this case, the plaintiff and the named defendant (defendant) took property as joint tenants and intended to live there together. When their relationship soured, the plaintiff sought to partition the property, having no remedy to replace the assignment of assets available in marital dissolution actions. Considering the defendant s small investment in the property, the trial court ordered a transfer of the defendant s interest in consideration of a payment of money. The majority reverses that resolution, holding that only after a sale of the property with its attendant expenses may an equitable distribution of the proceeds be ordered. The trial court had fashioned a commonsense, fair and equitable solution, which is what equity is supposed to do. We should uphold the trial court s discretion to do equity when faced with unusual and difficult circumstances. See Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386, 395, 439 A.2d 1016 (1981).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
